ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Caroline Lucas: What progress he has made on negotiations relating to the potential effect of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the NHS.

Dave Watts: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on NHS services.

George Freeman: The Government’s aim and my central mission as the new Minister for life sciences is to accelerate access for NHS patients to the very latest diagnostic devices and drugs by making the UK the best place in the world in which to develop innovative treatments. The US is a world leader in medical technology and TTIP will help NHS patients get faster access to those innovations. Let me be clear: the treaty excludes the NHS from binding commitments. Parliament will retain sovereignty over how we organise and fund our health system and NHS England is free to decide how best to commission NHS services in the clinical interests of local patients, as it does today.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Minister for his answer and I welcome him to his new post. If his assurances were remotely credible then surely the British Medical Association would not have called for health to be excluded from TTIP entirely. Will the Minister confirm that under the investor-state dispute mechanism, US corporations will be able to challenge our national health policy decisions for ad hoc arbitration tribunals and potentially sue us for millions of dollars in damages for loss of profit in the event of any moves to reverse the coalition’s privatisation agenda and bring the NHS back fully into public hands?

George Freeman: No, I will not confirm that, but the hon. Lady does not have to take it from me. She can take it from the people who are doing the negotiations.
	The US chief negotiator confirms that the United States has no provision in its trade agreements on health. The EU chief negotiator says:
	“I wish… to stress that our approach to services negotiations excludes any commitment on public services, and the governments remain at any time free to decide that certain services should be provided by the public sector.”

Dave Watts: Before the election, there was a promise that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Given the concern of the Opposition and the BMA, will the Minister meet the BMA to work out how we can get a cast iron assurance that these TTIP talks will not be used to privatise the NHS?

George Freeman: I will happily meet the BMA, but such a request is a bit rich coming from a Labour party that legislated to introduce competition in the health service and to pay private sector providers 11% more, which is now illegal under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Let me be clear about this, and I can be no clearer than the Labour member of the all-party group for TTIP, who said that
	“my direct discussions with the EU’s chief negotiator have helped produce an EU promise to fully protect our health service…TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that these negotiations will have no effect on NHS services and how they are provided. With his life sciences hat on, will the Minister also confirm that this treaty gives us a real advantage as UK companies will be able to compete in the American market?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As well as providing a £10 billion boost to the economy, which I am surprised to see that the left is not in favour of, and securing 13 million jobs in the EU, this treaty also helps our NHS pioneers and innovators and our UK life science companies generate revenue for this country from our innovations in health care in the world’s biggest health care market.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Is it not the case that free trade agreements have always grown the economies that have contracted within those agreements, and a growing economy can only benefit the NHS in the future?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The truth is that we cannot have a strong economy without a strong NHS, and we cannot have a strong NHS without a strong economy. In a modern society, health and wealth go hand in hand, which is why this treaty, with the safeguards that we have secured, is good for Britain and good for NHS patients.

Keith Vaz: Some 3 million people with diabetes have not received their full health checks, and 630,000 people have diabetes but do not know about it. Will the Minister give us an assurance that nothing in this deal will affect the ability of people to have free diabetes tests?

George Freeman: The last time I checked the TTIP negotiations do not make any specific provision for access to those services within the NHS. All I can do is remind the right hon. Gentleman that over the course
	of this Parliament, we have invested another £12 billion, hired more doctors and nurses and increased the provision of diagnostics in the NHS. This treaty does not affect that.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no requirement in TTIP for this or any future Government to open NHS health care services to further competition and private sector provision, and that TTIP will have no effect on the ability of local NHS commissioners to decide who delivers services to patients?

George Freeman: I can absolutely provide that guarantee. UK sovereignty on health is not in any way threatened by TTIP. As I have already told the House, safeguards on this are being built in by both the American and the European negotiators. As my right hon. Friend points out, clinical commissioning decisions in the NHS will rightly remain with the clinical commissioning groups, which include the people who are closest to the patients.

Margaret Ritchie: For the avoidance of any doubt, given that health is devolved to Northern Ireland, what assurances can the Minister give us that not just the UK Government, but the devolved Administrations, will be safeguarded from the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism?

George Freeman: The treaty’s provisions apply to the whole United Kingdom, so it will be for the delegated authority of the people of Ulster and their Administration to give effect to the treaty locally.

NHS Facilities (Contracting Out)

Tim Loughton: What safeguards are in place for the sustainability of NHS facilities when clinical commissioning groups contract out local services.

Daniel Poulter: The previous Government introduced greater competition to the NHS. This Government have ensured that it is for local doctors and nurses through clinical commissioning groups, rather than bureaucrats, to decide how best to procure NHS services in the interests of their patients.

Tim Loughton: As the Minister is aware, Coastal West Sussex CCG is controversially proposing to award a major contract for musculo-skeletal services to a social enterprise consortium rather than Worthing hospital. While I welcome new ways of working in the NHS, as long as the quality of care for patients remains key, what safeguards are in place to ensure that existing NHS services such as trauma and accident and emergency, which we campaigned so hard to protect at Worthing hospital, are not compromised?

Daniel Poulter: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 ensures that commissioners must also have regard to delivering integrated health care services. I reassure my hon. Friend that the West Sussex CCG has clearly stated:
	“The…CCG will continue to commission MSK related trauma from the current providers and the intention is for this to continue for the duration of this MSK…contract”.

Jim Cunningham: What is the Minister doing to retain GPs as there is considerable concern in Coventry about the number who are leaving practice?

Daniel Poulter: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are now 1,000 more GPs in training and working in the NHS under this Government than when we came to power in 2010. We are committed to training even more GPs to ensure that we can widen access to general practice services.

Andrew George: In what circumstances can clinical commissioning groups treat the NHS as a preferred provider, and in what circumstances are they forced to contract out services?

Daniel Poulter: As my hon. Friend will be aware, when commissioning services, it is important that regard is given not only to competition because, under the 2012 Act, we have ensured that there must be regard to delivering an integrated and joined-up approach for local services. That is an issue for local commissioners to decide in the best interests of the patients they look after.

John Cryer: Are not certain CCGs starting to merge decision-making processes, meaning that some important strategic decisions are removed even further from local communities and there is therefore a complete lack of accountability?

Daniel Poulter: For some more specialist services, collaboration between various parts of the local NHS will always be needed. That is about good health care commissioning and ensuring that services are joined up in a collaborative way. Whereas day-to-day, bread-and-butter services will be commissioned by a local CCG, for more specialist services, clinical commissioners will of course need to work together to ensure that local centres of excellence are commissioned.

Steven Baker: The sustainability of NHS facilities is often prejudiced by the millstone of Labour’s private finance initiative deals. What is the Government’s expectation of how CCGs should make the best of the hand that they have been dealt?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that PFI deals signed by the previous Government have crippled the finances of many hospital trusts, meaning that many of them are unable to invest as much in front-line patient care as they would like. It is important that the Government support the mitigation of PFI deals, when possible, and we have a group that is doing exactly that and supporting local commissioners to deal with the worst excesses of the previous Government’s mismanagement of the NHS finances.

A and E Waiting Times

Gareth Thomas: How many patients waited longer than four hours in A and E departments in 2013-14.

Karl Turner: How many patients waited longer than four hours in A and E departments in 2013-14.

Jeremy Hunt: Of the 21.7 million attendances at all A and E departments in England in 2013-14, 939,000 were not seen and treated within four hours, meaning that 95.7%—0.7% above the national target—were. I am pleased to inform the House that hospitals will have an extra 260 A and E doctors this winter, bringing emergency medics in the NHS to a record high.

Gareth Thomas: The reason for the big rise in A and E admissions in my area is the weekday closure of the hugely popular Alexandra Avenue polyclinic. Will the Secretary of State look again at Harrow’s NHS funding formula to determine whether that popular service could be reopened?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have visited the Northwick Park A and E department, where the clinicians on the front line are working incredibly hard. As he knows, the funding formula is decided independently—at arm’s length from politicians—but we have ensured that everyone gets a real-terms rise.

Karl Turner: Data published last Friday show that A and Es have missed their waiting targets for 64 weeks on the bounce. They are in a worse state now than they were last winter. What is going on?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I caution the hon. Gentleman on his use of statistics, because he is referring to a subset of A and Es, not all of them. Last year we hit our A and E target. I say gently to Labour Members that they need to be careful if they try to politicise operational issues, because people will note that in every year of this Parliament we have hit our A and E targets in England and Labour has missed its targets in Wales.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures show that the average wait before assessment in A and Es in England is now down to 30 minutes, as opposed to 77 minutes under the previous Labour Government?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I just say to the Labour party that the time people wait to be seen at A and Es has reduced while the number of people going to A and Es has increased, but in the end it will not be sustainable unless we invest in out-of-hospital care, which is why we need more personal care by GPs. That is why we have brought back named GPs and why we have 1,000 more GPs than we did four years ago.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome the outstanding treatment provided at the A and E at the William Harvey hospital—part of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust—which I attended on a family emergency during the summer, and note that the Care Quality Commission is getting striking improvements in East Kent, rather than the sort of cover-ups we used to see in the past?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government, with the new inspection regime, we have had to take the difficult decision to put 18 hospitals into special measures, including East Kent. Six have now come out of special measures. We are tackling these problems in the NHS by being honest about them. I gently say to the Labour party that if it wants to be the party of the NHS, it has to give the country confidence that it will be honest about poor care when it comes across it.

Andrew Gwynne: On A and E, does the Secretary of State accept that we must do more to address the appalling statistic that one in four cancers is diagnosed in A and E departments? At the weekend, Labour outlined plans dramatically to reduce the wait for tests and results, paid for through a tobacco levy, which are supported by Macmillan, Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Radiologists. Will he now back those plans?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the fact that Labour is thinking about how to improve our performance on cancer, because in 2010 we had the worst cancer survival rates in western Europe. I gently say to the Labour party that the issue is only partly about the amount of time it takes to get a hospital appointment when one has a referral; a much bigger issue is the fact that we are not spotting cancers early enough in the first place. That is why I hope that Labour will also welcome the fact that in this Parliament we are on track to treat nearly 1 million more people for cancer than we did in the previous Parliament. That is real progress of which the whole House can be proud.

Philip Hollobone: While it is working with one of the most outdated A and Es in the NHS, and one that will require fresh capital investment, does the Secretary of State recognise the tremendous improvement at Kettering general hospital’s A and E, which in the past year has gone from one of the worst performing to one of the best performing in the country?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely recognise that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very close interest he takes in what is happening at Kettering hospital. I have visited the hospital, as he knows, and think that it is working very hard and that it offers a very good example of how, even when times are tough, finances are tough and there is increasing pressure from an ageing population, it is possible to increase and improve A and E performance. It has done a terrific job.

NHS Trusts (Deficit Forecasts)

Ian Austin: What estimate he has made of the number of NHS trusts forecasting a deficit.

Jeremy Hunt: Eighty-six NHS trusts are forecasting a deficit this year.

Ian Austin: Jobs at Russells Hall hospital are at risk as managers battle with a £12 million deficit that the chief executive says is critical. Staff are working flat out, but people are still waiting too long in A and E, and too long for other treatment. What will the Secretary of
	State do to ensure that patients in Dudley and the hard-working staff at Russells Hall get the support they need?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we are doing. The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust has 350 additional nurses this Parliament, and it has got them because this Government took the difficult decision to protect and increase the NHS budget, because those of us on the Government Benches know that a strong NHS needs a strong economy. We are taking measures, but there is more to do. I recognise that the staff on the front line are working very hard, but I think that he should also give credit when things are starting to move in the right direction.

Stephen Mosley: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strains placed on the budgets of the Countess of Chester NHS Trust because of the need to treat thousands of patients every year who are fleeing the disastrous management of Labour in Wales. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that hospitals on the English side of the border get a fair share of resources?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to talk about that intolerable pressure on hospitals on the England-Wales border. For every one English patient admitted for treatment in a Welsh hospital, five Welsh patients are admitted for treatment in an English hospital, which creates huge pressure for them. I have written to the Welsh Health Minister to say that the NHS is happy to treat more Welsh patients, but the trouble is that NHS Wales is not prepared to pay for it. That is why Welsh patients get a second-class health service. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is normally a very calm and reserved fellow—almost statesmanlike. This curious behaviour is quite out of character. He should take some sort of sedative. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) can probably advise him.

Liz Kendall: With hospitals set to be £1 billion in the red this year, the Secretary of State should be getting a grip of NHS finances. Instead, he is starting on yet another reorganisation. First, he put NHS England in charge of commissioning primary and specialist care. Now, NHS England wants to hand this back to clinical commissioning groups. Ministers have already wasted three years and £3 billion of taxpayers’ money. How much will this Secretary of State’s second reorganisation cost?

Jeremy Hunt: It is lovely spin from the party that carried out nine reorganisations in 13 years. The difficult truth for the Labour party is that this reorganisation that they fought so hard against has been a success. We are saving this Parliament £5 billion. We have reduced the number of administrators by 19,000. We have hired 10,000 more doctors and nurses with the money, and the result is that our NHS, in very difficult circumstances, is doing nearly a million more operations every single year. That is something that we on both sides of the House should welcome and be proud of.

Private Finance Initiative Costs

Jesse Norman: What steps he is taking to encourage hospital trusts to manage their PFI costs more effectively.

Daniel Poulter: PFI schemes have had their contracts reviewed for potential cost savings. A major data collection on the results is currently under way. In 2013, the Treasury launched a code of conduct for operational PFI contracts which contained a number of new guidelines for better working relations between the public and private sector parties.

Jesse Norman: Thanks to determined work with which I have been closely associated and with outside experts’ advice, Hereford hospital has managed to save several million pounds on its exorbitant PFI contract—money that is already being ploughed back into medicine and services for local people. My studies make it clear that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds still to be saved on the PFI across other NHS hospital trusts. Will my hon. Friend press Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority to do everything they can to encourage hospitals to take on specialist PFI contract advisers to help them make these savings?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Questions must be shorter. I say with the greatest courtesy to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that to read out a prepared script and be too long is doubly bad, and it really is not excusable.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the annual cost of PFI left by the previous Administration is £1.79 billion, which will rise to £2.7 billion. It is right that we do all we can to support hospitals to reduce the costs of PFI that have been inflicted upon them, and we will continue to do that and work with the Treasury to make sure that that specialist advice is available for the NHS to reduce the cost.

Barry Sheerman: I am worried that the members of the ministerial team are living in some sort of parallel universe. At the Calderdale and Huddersfield Trust we had a PFI. A hospital that has a long history of success is now struggling because it cannot get a management that works between the clinical commissioning groups and the trust. That is the truth—it is chaos.

Daniel Poulter: There is nothing wrong with PFI schemes in principle; the point is the way in which they were put together by the previous Government. In 2011, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said:
	“We made mistakes. I’m not defending every pen stroke of the PFI deals we signed”.
	Those PFI contracts have damaged local hospitals and damaged local health care provision—

Mr Speaker: Order. I just said to a Back Bencher that his question was too long. I have said to the Minister several times that his answers are not just too long, but far too long, and if they do not get shorter I will have to ask him to resume his seat—which frankly, for a Minister, is a bit feeble.

Nick de Bois: Will the Minister confirm that unlike the PFI agreements for my neighbouring hospitals in north Middlesex and Barnet, which were negotiated badly and ineffectively, the rebuild of Chase Farm hospital will be funded by proceeds from its own land sale and Treasury money, not PFI?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Hospitals should always look to their own efficiencies first by improving procurement practices and freeing up surplus land to fund local schemes. His hospital has done that very effectively, and it has not pursued the policies of the previous Government, which have put so many trusts into difficulty.

Nick Brown: Given the total forecast deficit across English hospital trusts, including PFI schemes, is it still the Government’s position that the situation can be dealt with by efficiency savings alone?

Daniel Poulter: During this Parliament we are set to improve efficiency in the NHS and make £20 billion-worth of efficiency savings. There is much more that we can continue to do on improving hospital procurement practices, sharing business services across the NHS, and freeing up surplus land—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) outlined, is happening at his hospital. That is what we need to focus on in freeing up money for the front line.

Guy Opperman: Hexham hospital is outstanding but was built under a very expensive Tony Blair PFI. Does the Minister welcome the fact that Northumbria NHS trust is the first in the country to buy out the PFI and put it into public ownership, thereby putting millions more into front-line care?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The PFI schemes negotiated by the previous Government were, quite frankly, disastrous for many hospitals. His hospital has seen that the way forward is to buy out the PFI and free up more money for front-line patient care. We will support as many more hospitals in doing that as can be achieved, because this is about making sure that we deliver more money for NHS patients.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was fascinated by the question from the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Would not the simple solution be to take all PFI assets back into public ownership, reintegrate them with hospitals’ existing assets, and save millions of pounds for hospitals every year and billions of pounds for the public purse over time?

Daniel Poulter: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with the way in which the previous Government negotiated PFI contracts. We are unhappy with it as well, because it is costing the NHS almost £2 billion on current forecasts. We are making sure that we can put in place measures to support hospitals in mitigating the worst excesses of these poorly signed PFI deals.

Ambulance Response Times (London)

Heidi Alexander: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of ambulance response times in London.

Jane Ellison: First, I praise the hard-working staff of the London ambulance service, who responded to 100,000 more calls last year. We know that the service is under some pressure, and that is why we are providing extra support to the NHS in London, including £15 million for the ambulance service to help to ensure that the trust meets standards in future.

Heidi Alexander: London ambulances are taking, on average, two minutes longer than they did three years ago to respond to the most serious call-outs. The chief executive of the service is quite open about the fact that she does not have enough staff on each shift every day. This is a service in chaos. Will the Minister be explicit about the support her Government are giving to ensure that my constituents, and Londoners, get the service they deserve?

Jane Ellison: This affects my constituents too, as I am also a London MP and therefore take a very close interest in it. I think it is unfair to say that the trust is in chaos. It is taking urgent steps to address the situation, including recruiting extra paramedics, increasing overtime, and reducing the number of multiple vehicles attending each call. We are working with Health Education England to increase the pool of paramedics, with 240 being trained in 2014, going up to 700 in 2018. Urgent measures are being taken to address the problem right now. I have had those assurances directly from managers in the trust whom I met very recently.

Jamie Reed: It is a fact that ambulances are taking longer to reach patients in the most critical condition. Today we are publishing figures regarding the increasing use of private ambulances. Nobody expects a private company to respond when they dial 999. Private ambulance usage has grown by 82% in the past two years nationally and by over 1,000% in London over the same period. Will the Secretary of State now admit that he sees no limit to the role of private companies in the national health service?

Jane Ellison: That is complete nonsense. The previous Government occasionally deployed private ambulances, which trusts use occasionally when they need to do so. This is another part of Labour’s myth of creeping privatisation, which is not true—it is absolute nonsense. It is important, however, in the interests of patient safety and as a short-term measure, that if that is what it takes, trusts must do it, as happened under the previous Government, because patient safety comes first.

Mental Health Nurses

Mike Kane: What estimate he has made of the number of mental health nurses working in the NHS in each of the last three years.

Norman Lamb: Mental health nurses are not identified in the NHS work force statistics. They work predominantly in psychiatric services, but also across a range of settings and the independent sector. The total number of full-time equivalent nurses working in psychiatric services was 39,472 in July 2012, 38,772 in July 2013, and 38,055 in July 2014. Since June, NHS organisations, including mental health trusts, have been required to report ward-level nursing numbers against safe staffing levels on NHS Choices.

Mike Kane: I am sure the Minister will join me in praising the hard work and dedication of all the staff at Laureate House mental health facility in Wythenshawe hospital in my constituency. The Government talk the talk, but do not walk the walk in terms of parity. Why has there been a decline in the number of mental health doctors over the past two years?

Norman Lamb: I also praise the work of the staff at the hon. Gentleman’s local trust. There has actually been an increase of more than 2,800 practitioners in psychological therapy since 2010 as part of the IAPT programme—increasing access to psychological therapies —which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear. For the first time, this Government are introducing access and waiting time standards in mental health, and that gives us the basis to achieve genuine equality for mental health for the first time ever.

Lorely Burt: My local trust in Solihull tries to treat mentally ill patients out of hospital and at home whenever possible. That is commendable, but when a patient needs a bed they have to travel up to 200 miles because the trust operates at 100% capacity most of the time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable and that more beds should be made available locally?

Norman Lamb: Yes, I agree that it is totally unacceptable for patients to be sent a long way away from home. In children’s services, we are investing £7 million extra this year to produce 50 more beds, and we are holding NHS organisations to account to ensure that they provide beds locally so that people do not have to travel long distances.

Luciana Berger: Research published yesterday by the Centre for Mental Health and the London School of Economics shows that perinatal mental illness is costing our economy more than £8 billion each year. Does the Minister think it is acceptable that half of mums do not have access to a service, are being separated from their babies, are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for a bed, or are not getting any help at all? What is he going to do about it?

Norman Lamb: The position has actually improved significantly. Last week, I visited a fantastic perinatal mental health service in Torbay where mums are getting support locally, as, indeed, they should be. I totally agree with the hon. Lady that it is unacceptable that people have to travel long distances, but across the country things are changing, and changing rapidly.

NHS (North-East and Scotland)

Alan Beith: If he will take steps to encourage greater co-operation between the NHS in north-east England and in Scotland.

Jane Ellison: Of course, it is important that the national health services in all four parts of the UK work together. Good examples of that are happening at the moment on major public health issues, as my right hon. Friend can imagine. Providers in England can and do treat patients referred from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, we put emphasis on enabling patients to choose where they will be treated, not on restricting that choice to providers in England.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend agree that if someone’s nearest hospital or health centre is on the other side of the border, the health bureaucracy should not set up artificial barriers to access and any advice the Department gives should reflect that principle?

Jane Ellison: I am aware that this concern has been highlighted for my right hon. Friend by a very difficult constituency issue with regard to Northumberland clinical commissioning group. To be clear, the CCG is free to commission services from Scottish providers if it wishes to do so. No one instructs a CCG on where to commission services from—that is a decision for the CCG and one of the strengths of the system. Convenience may not be the most important factor in making that decision, but CCGs need to be assured of quality and standards. I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend further about his particular case.

Leeds Children’s Heart Unit

Jason McCartney: When the third stage of the review into the closure of surgery at Leeds children’s heart unit will be published.

George Freeman: Safe, compassionate care is an absolute priority for the Government. Publication of the Verita reports regarding the Leeds paediatric cardiac unit is a matter for NHS England. The reports are due to be published on 28 October, and copies will be placed on the NHS England website.

Jason McCartney: Constituents and clinicians continue to tell me that the children’s heart surgery unit goes from strength to strength, provides high-quality care, and has the full confidence of NHS England. Does the Minister sympathise with patients, families and clinicians who have faced uncertainty because of the delay of the third stage of the review?

George Freeman: Yes, I absolutely sympathise: I understand how important this is to local patients and their parents. As my hon. Friend knows, NHS England’s review of children’s heart surgery goes back a very long way—to the Bristol royal infirmary issues in the 1980s—and I know that Leeds and Newcastle Members are actively engaged on it. I can say that there is no immediate threat to any congenital heart surgery unit. NHS England
	has held a drop-in session with all MPs, and I encourage Members to make representations to the consultation on the national review.

Greg Mulholland: The reality is that NHS England has made a mess of this. I hope that it will finally apologise when the third stage of the review is published. On the process that we have now, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is an open and fair process that will allow all units, including Leeds, to reach the important standards that we want for all our units?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a matter for NHS England to deal with. I have made inquiries to ensure that the process is being followed as it should be. As I say, there is no immediate threat. The issues around the provision of congenital heart disease services are not limited to Leeds. NHS England is conducting a nationwide review of congenital heart services, which will look at the whole of life care pathways available across the country. The truth is that congenital heart diseases are often very serious illnesses affecting life expectancy and quality of life for patients, who will expect NHS England to put in place the very highest quality care and service available.

Rebalancing Project

Graham Allen: What contribution his Department is making in support of the health objectives of the rebalancing project on dental checks for three-year-olds, foetal alcohol syndrome and lung screening for people over 60.

Jane Ellison: The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken a number of times about his valuable project. He knows that I am very interested in it and its outcomes. The Government are committed to improving oral health, with a particular focus on children, to reducing the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome and to improving outcomes for all cancers. Results of major trials on lung cancer screening, including our own £2.4 million UK trial, are due in 2015. At that point, the UK national screening committee will review all the available evidence, looking towards a pilot.

Graham Allen: The rebalancing project, which covers my constituency, is I hope an innovative way of working that does not require additional money from the Government, but focuses on key health inequalities, such as a dental check for every three-year-old, the foetal alcohol syndrome prevalence study that we are trying to do and lung cancer screening for everyone over 60. Will the hon. Lady keep an eye on this work, use her reputation as a very committed Minister and visit us in Nottingham to see whether the work we are doing can be spread elsewhere in the UK?

Jane Ellison: All the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlines are extremely important. We, too, are very interested in the prevalence study on foetal alcohol syndrome. He may be aware that the World Health
	Organisation has just launched some work in that area, which will be of great interest to him. It would of course be a delight to visit the project.

Mr Speaker: These are splendidly succinct answers. Perhaps the Minister should issue her textbook to her colleagues. That would be extremely useful.

Bill Esterson: The Canadian Government say that foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is the most important preventable cause of severe childhood brain damage. The Minister told me in Westminster Hall last week that the chief medical officer’s review of the evidence is continuing. Is not the truth, however, that the evidence has been available for years, and that the time has come for the review to be published and for there to be much greater protection for the thousands of children who are damaged each year by women drinking in pregnancy?

Jane Ellison: We had a good debate last week in Westminster Hall. My reply remains what it was then: there is not complete clarity in clinical evidence on safe levels of drinking. That is exactly why the chief medical officer—[Interruption.] From the Opposition Front Bench, I hear cries of “Yes, there is.” I am sorry, but I am backing the UK’s chief medical officer over Opposition Front Benchers when it comes to the clinical basis for this. The review is important and is under way. I know that all Members will be interested in its outcome, and in how we can help to publicise good guidance to women on this very important issue.

Children’s Mental Health Services

Russell Brown: What steps he is taking to improve access to and reduce waiting times for children’s mental health services.

Norman Lamb: The taskforce on child and adolescent mental health is considering ways to improve access to children’s mental health services. The plan that we published earlier this month, “Achieving Better Access to Mental Health Services by 2020” sets out the ambition to extend waiting time standards across all mental health services by 2020. We are investing £7 million this year in providing an additional 50 beds.

Russell Brown: More and more children are being treated on adult psychiatric wards, with many having to travel hundreds of miles across the country for treatment, as has been said today. The chief executive of YoungMinds has said that the increase in the number of children being placed in adult wards was predictable, following the cuts to mental health services. Why did the Minister not see it coming and do something sooner?

Norman Lamb: We did see a problem emerging. That is why NHS England set up a taskforce to look at that precise problem. Its recommendation earlier this year was to add 50 beds, and that is what we are doing. The indication from October is that there is a significant increase in spare bed capacity within the system, so the problem is being addressed.

Stephen Barclay: I welcome the additional £7 million of investment. Given that 65% of children in Fenland wait more than 18 weeks for access to mental health services, will the Minister write to me to set out how the additional investment will help rural communities in particular?

Norman Lamb: I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that, for the first time, we are introducing access and waiting time standards in mental health, including in children’s mental health. Until now, there has been discrimination at the heart of the NHS. Labour introduced waiting time and access standards, but it left out mental health. That was completely unjustifiable and I am proud that the coalition is correcting it.

Seema Malhotra: The cost of living crisis has had a huge impact on children’s well-being across Britain as families struggle. That issue has been raised with me by support workers in my constituency who have seen young people come forward with depression. That is compounded by the lack of mental health support services. Does the Minister recognise those issues? Is he happy with the data that he has available on the prevalence of young people’s mental health problems?

Norman Lamb: I absolutely recognise the problem. I have commissioned an up-to-date prevalence survey so that we have evidence that can help services around the country. If the hon. Lady wants to talk with me further about the problems in her area, I would be happy to do so.

Tim Farron: A local report on mental health and emotional resilience among young people in South Lakeland found that the stigma surrounding mental health and the lack of sufficient resources over time mean that distressed and panic-stricken families often do not know how to begin to access the support that their children desperately need. How can my right hon. Friend help us get swift, clear and obvious access to mental health care for young people?

Norman Lamb: I welcome the study that has been undertaken in my hon. Friend’s area. The brilliant “time to change” campaign has done an awful lot to tackle stigma in mental health. We confirmed recently that the funding for that will continue in 2015-16. I accept that we need to do much more to improve access to children’s mental health services.

Cross-border Treatment (England/Wales)

David Davies: How many patients resident in England have written to him to request that they be treated in Wales.

Jeremy Hunt: Given the perilous state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that not a single English patient has written to me asking for funding to be treated in Wales.

David Davies: My hon. Friend is correct. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has had dealings with the NHS in Wales. In the light of that, will he assure us that he will do everything possible to push
	ahead with the OECD comparison report into the health systems in Wales and England, on which the Welsh Assembly Government are disgracefully trying to obfuscate and cause delay because they are afraid of what might be discovered?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that that says it all. Opposition Front Benchers tell us continually that they are not prepared to condemn what is happening in Wales and that the health service in Wales is performing well, yet here is an opportunity to prove it—an independent study by the OECD of the four NHS systems in the UK—and Labour is trying to block it. This issue matters, because the policies in Wales are what Labour wants to do in England.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State concede that for many decades people from north Wales have had to travel to England for treatment? In that respect, both Government and Opposition Front Benchers are culpable.

Jeremy Hunt: The Government are happy for people to travel anywhere in the United Kingdom. My concern about health services in England is the pressure created, because for every patient that goes from England to Wales, five want to come from Wales to England.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his new website, My NHS, is providing much more openness and transparency for patients from England. To what extent does the extra information and ability to improve standards in hospitals as a result also apply to Wales?

Jeremy Hunt: This is the big lesson that we have learned after the tragedy of Mid Staffs. The Francis report said that the NHS had become over-dependent on a targets culture that was damaging for patients, and the Government think that the way to improve standards is through transparency, openness, and the pressure of peer review. We have embraced that lesson wholeheartedly, and it is such a shame that the Welsh Labour Government have taken a different tack.

Wayne David: Has the Secretary of State seen today’s Western Mail? If he has, he will know that the Western Mail, which is not a Labour supporting paper, totally condemns the scaremongering of the Conservative party.

Jeremy Hunt: When I started speaking out about poor care in England—one of the first things I did in this job—those on the Labour Front Bench said that I was running down the NHS. The result of my speaking out is that we are turning around failing hospitals and have 5,000 more nurses on our wards. The NHS in England is getting safer and better, and we want exactly the same thing for Wales.

Nurse Training

Barbara Keeley: How many training posts for nurses were commissioned in England in each of the last three years.

Daniel Poulter: Between 2010 and 2013, 52,528 new pre-registration nurse training places were filled, and this year Health Education England has made 19,206 new places available.

Barbara Keeley: It is interesting that the Secretary of State cannot follow his own advice about not making operational matters in the NHS political footballs. Perhaps we can try again. The number of nurse training places has been cut by 1,000 since 2010—a key issue given the need of hospitals to reach safe staffing levels. The Royal College of Nursing has said that Labour’s plans for 20,000 more nurses are absolutely necessary. Does the Minister agree?

Daniel Poulter: It is right that hospitals respond when there are not enough staff working there, if that is affecting patient care. That is why under this Government 2,500 more nursing staff are working now than in 2010. That is progress to ensure that we are facing up to challenges in care where they exist at local hospitals.

Margot James: Russells Hall hospital in the borough of Dudley has appointed 56 new nurses from overseas since the Keogh review last year. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the graduate trainee programme for nursing that Russells Hall has put in place, which will provide for 100 trained nurses over future years?

Daniel Poulter: That sounds like a commendable programme. It is good to hear that my hon. Friend’s local trust, where there was a shortage of nurses, is facing up to that and employing more nurses to ensure that patient care is as good as it can be.

Hospital Walk-in Centres

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on hospital walk-in centres.

Jane Ellison: Ministers have received 34 representations regarding NHS walk-in centres.

Stephen Hepburn: The NHS walk-in centre in Jarrow sees more than 27,000 people a year, yet the local management propose to close it to pay for the reorganisation that the Government have brought in. Will the Minister intervene on this occasion, overrule the manager and back the local people?

Jane Ellison: I find the hon. Gentleman’s question slightly mystifying. Responsibility for walk-in centres was passed to local commissioners in 2007, and as I understand, South Tyneside CCG is looking to improve urgent care in the area and reduce reliance on A and E. It reckons that 33,000 people did not need treatment in 2012-13 in the local A and E, so I quite see why it would want to review that. I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the consultation, and to get involved with some of the excellent north-east public health projects such as North East Better Health at Work, which is an award-winning scheme that would do a lot to relieve pressure on services.

Topical Questions

Heidi Alexander: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: Last week, the Care Quality Commission published its “State of Care” report. This affirmed that the pace and scale of change to improve care in the NHS last year has been unprecedented, but it also contained some hard truths. It found that the variation in the quality of health in adult social care was too wide, and that too many hospitals have not got to grips with the basics of safety. This Government want every NHS patient to have confidence that their care will be both safe and compassionate. We have turned around six hospitals put into special measures, and people saying that their care is safe and compassionate are at record highs. We are determined to change the culture of the NHS away from secrecy towards transparency, and away from targets towards personal care where patients’ needs always come first.

Heidi Alexander: In August 2014, 10,616 patients had to wait longer than six weeks for a key cancer test. That is five times the number of people who had to wait that long in May 2010. If the Government do not support Labour’s commitment to a one-week cancer test guarantee, what action will they be taking to reduce waiting times?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said earlier, we welcome the fact that Labour is now interested in cancer policy. If we look at the reason for those delays, which we are working hard to address, it is because the number of cancer referrals—[Interruption.] Labour left this country with the worst cancer survival rate in western Europe; we are doing something about it. The reason for the delays is that the number of people being referred for cancer tests has gone up by 50% since 2010. We are treating record numbers of people with cancer because we want to do something about that survival rate.

Philip Davies: The Public Health Minister is pursuing a long list of nanny state proposals that we might have better expected from the Labour party, including plain packaging of tobacco, outlawing parents smoking in cars and having higher taxes on alcohol. Will she give us a list of which policies, if any, she is pursuing that have a Conservative flavour to them?

Jane Ellison: Following on from the Secretary of State’s previous answer, tobacco control is an integral part of tackling cancer. I am delighted to let the House know that smoking prevalence among adults in England fell to 18.4% in 2013. This is a record low, which means that the Government have hit their tobacco control plan target for 2015 two years early. I am sure that even my hon. Friend would welcome that news.

Andy Burnham: At their conference, the Tory party promised flat funding for the NHS in the next Parliament, but experts say that the service is at breaking point now and that the funding promised is
	not enough. Now, the Secretary of State’s own side are saying the same thing. The Chair of the Health Committee said last night:
	“The Chancellor is going to have to write a bigger cheque”
	or we will
	“see reductions in services or waiting times increase”
	and
	“go down the route of top-ups and charges”.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with her, and will he concede that a flat budget for the NHS in the next Parliament will not stop it tipping into a full-blown crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that the shadow Health Secretary is misrepresenting what was said at the Conservative party conference. We promised not just to protect the NHS budget but to protect and continue to increase the NHS budget in real terms. I gently say to him that we have increased the NHS budget spend this Parliament by double the amount that Labour promised at its conference. We did that because on this side of the House we understand a simple truth: a strong NHS needs a strong economy.

Andy Burnham: The House will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer my question. There is a very simple reason why the Secretary of State cannot answer my question: his party has prioritised unfunded tax cuts for higher earners, leaving a large black hole in the public finances. There will be nothing left for the NHS if the Tories are re-elected. We on the Labour Benches, in contrast, have promised £2.5 billion over and above what they are committed to. Does that not make the choice on the NHS now clear: under Labour, more money for the NHS; under the Tories, tax cuts for some but an NHS crisis for all?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The tax cuts the Government have prioritised are for lower-paid people, many of whom work in the NHS. When we had a strike last week, he was criticising the Government for not being more generous, but we have been generous—with the tax cuts he is now criticising. The NHS is facing the biggest financial squeeze in its history partly because of an ageing population but partly because the last Labour Government forgot about the deficit.

Caroline Dinenage: In my constituency, waiting times for GP appointments remain long and practices are struggling to recruit enough doctors. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me as to when the improvements he is making elsewhere in the country will take effect in Gosport, and will he meet me to discuss the matter?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to discuss it with my hon. Friend, who is right to focus on the role of GPs. If we are to transform the NHS by the end of the next Parliament, we need fundamentally to improve out-of-hospital care, and GPs are at the heart of that. We have recruited 1,000 more GPs during this Parliament, but we need many more, and that will definitely include her constituency.

Derek Twigg: We have a shortage of GPs in Halton. Constituents tell me it is more difficult to get an appointment, and in recent months, two GPs have told me that there are major problems with GP services in Halton and the country as a whole. Despite what the Secretary of State says about increased numbers of GPs, that is not happening in Halton. What is he doing to address the problem, particularly in areas of great deprivation, such as Halton?

Jeremy Hunt: There is pressure throughout the NHS because there are nearly 1 million more over-65s than there were four years ago, which puts pressure on GPs, as it does on any department or hospital providing elective care. However, this is not just about getting an appointment; it is also about ensuring that GPs have personal responsibility for the patients on their list and are accountable for the care of some of the most vulnerable people. We have brought back named GPs with personal responsibility for over-75s, and I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes our going further and bringing it back for everyone.

Neil Carmichael: Meningitis Now, based in my constituency, is a keen supporter of the Men B vaccination for infants. Given the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s recommendation that it start, will the Minister update us on how the roll-out is progressing?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right to highlight this important issue. As he knows, the Department is negotiating with the manufacturer to purchase the vaccine at a cost-effective price, and he will understand that we need to ensure that NHS funds are used as effectively as possible. We are keen to see a positive conclusion to the negotiations as soon as possible so that plans for the Men B immunisation programme can be finalised.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Secretary of State explain why NHS England has entered into a contract with a company based in Kent to provide GP services, when my constituents have just seen a string of locum GPs at a higher cost to the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: Wherever we can avoid it, we do not want to use locum GPs or nurses or agency doctors, because they are much more expensive—our spend on that is far too high—but sometimes when there are issues of patient safety we need a quick solution. That is what has happened in response to the Francis report: as well as recruiting 5,000 additional nurses on a permanent basis, we are using extra agency nurses. However, we hope to bring those numbers down.

Simon Wright: I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has responsibility for care and support, on securing the introduction of NHS waiting times for mental health for the first time next year. How will he ensure that the resulting treatment is not only timely but evidence-based and effective?

Norman Lamb: Last week, Mike Richards told me how waiting-time standards had transformed cancer care, and I think the
	same can happen for mental health. It is outrageous that somebody with a suspected cancer gets seen by a specialist within two weeks, but that if someone has a first episode of psychosis, who knows what will happen to them. That discrimination has to end, and we are delivering that.

David Anderson: The good people who work in the NHS have faced six years of pay restraint. How much longer must they carry the can for the failures of the people who got us into this mess—the moneylenders, the LIBOR fixers, the people who mis-sold mortgages? How much longer must front-line staff pay for the mistakes of capitalism?

Daniel Poulter: Even in very difficult times this year, all NHS staff, either through their increments or through the 1% increase, will be getting a pay rise. Of course, we would like to do more, but the NHS finances are under pressure, and our priority is to ensure that we employ as many front-line staff as we can. We now have more than 13,000 more front-line staff working in the NHS than we did when we came into government.

Charlie Elphicke: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether there are any plans to sell off the NHS and will the NHS remain free at the point of delivery?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that there are no such plans and it will remain free at the point of delivery. Nor do we have any plans to pay private providers 11% more than NHS providers, as happened under the previous Labour Government.

Sheila Gilmore: In response to my amendment to the Care Bill earlier this year about the portability of care packages to the countries of the UK, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), promised that a voluntary framework would be in place by November. It is 10 days until November, so how is progress going?

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We have drawn up a statement of principles, we have been discussing them with the devolved Administrations and we hope very much that we will be able to achieve an agreed statement of principles in November. I cannot guarantee it, but that is absolutely our objective.

Stephen Mosley: Healthwatch England recently released a report, “Suffering in silence”, that found that almost two thirds of people felt that their complaint about the NHS was not taken seriously and half ended up not receiving an apology or even hearing the word sorry. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that complaints are taken seriously in the NHS?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Following the appalling systemic abuse and neglect described in the Francis report, our response, set out in “Hard Truths”, focused relentlessly on hearing the patient voice, learning tough lessons on patient safety and care,
	and, in particular, the creation of the new independent chief inspector of hospitals, who is looking closely at all complaints. The health ombudsman has increased its caseload and we are also taking measures to display information on how to complain in every hospital and ward across the country.

Sharon Hodgson: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Eilish Hoole, who sadly passed away in July from ovarian cancer. She was only 47 and the mother of five children and following her diagnosis of late-stage ovarian cancer she campaigned tirelessly in Parliament with Target Ovarian Cancer, which led to the recent successful pilot of the awareness campaign in the north-west. Will the Secretary of State commit to roll that out the rest of the country so that other women in her position get to see their children grow up?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to pay tribute to Eilish Hoole, to the many cancer campaigners and to the many people who have survived cancer and put their lives back together again. There is still a huge job to do in getting earlier diagnosis. I think there is agreement across the House about the need for much earlier cancer diagnosis, particularly for ovarian cancer, which makes a huge difference. I know that we would all like to pay tribute to her work.

Tim Farron: NHS England has identified south Cumbria as one of just three places in England where travel times to receive radiotherapy are unacceptably and debilitatingly long. Will the Secretary of State meet me and NHS England to talk about how Kendal hospital can be the place for a new radiotherapy centre this autumn?

Jane Ellison: I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss this important issue for his constituents.

Kate Green: The NHS Litigation Authority is piloting a new approach to improve feedback and learning in response to allegations of negligence. Will the Secretary of State say how patients can find out what feedback the NHSLA has given to individual trusts and how the trusts have responded?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady raises an important issue, which is that the NHS Litigation Authority often picks up on things when they do not go well and when the communication between patients and trusts has broken down. That is one of the things that need to be put right. I will look into the matter and write to her, because it is important that when things go wrong patients are supported in the right way and the lessons are learned.

Annette Brooke: Currently, there are no psychiatric intensive care unit beds for women in Dorset. One of my constituents was recently sent to a unit in Bradford. Will additional funding be available to address this appalling situation?

Norman Lamb: I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the concerns in her area. I heard similar concerns when I was in Devon last week and
	clearly the objective must be to have facilities close to where people live, rather than their having to travel long distances.

Fiona Mactaggart: I assume that the Secretary of State has read the National Audit Office’s report on local funding for health care. In the 17 years for which I have been Member of Parliament for Slough, we have never reached our target for funding and now the gap between Slough’s target and our actual funding is greater than ever before. What is he going to do to ensure that areas get the funding they need to provide the health care their residents require?

Jeremy Hunt: First, we have made the decision an independent one, taken at arm’s length from Ministers, to try to take the party politics out of it. Secondly, we protected the NHS budget. Thirdly, one of the most important and significant things for the hon. Lady’s constituents has been the way in which the Heatherwood and Wexham Park NHS Trust has been turned round from failing and being in special measures to being taken over and run by Frimley Park NHS Trust—the most successful trust in the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have overrun, principally because of long questions and answers earlier, but I am keen to accommodate a couple more colleagues.

Fiona Bruce: Mitochondrial technique was last tried on humans in 2003 by John Zhang, resulting, I understand, in two still births and an abortion. Last week, one of the members of an expert panel of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said he had only just become aware of Zhang’s study. What action will Ministers take to ensure that this worrying study is properly examined before any steps are taken to bring this issue before the House?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in this matter and led the Back-Bench business debate on 1 September. I will certainly ask the HFEA and the expert panel to look at the study to which she refers, but
	I can provide the reassurance I have given before—that the wide body of expertise and information out there about mitochondrial disease is regularly reviewed over a long period of time.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State makes great play of protecting the NHS budget, but NHS England, the Nuffield Trust and his hon. Friend the Chair of the Health Committee all agree that it needs another £30 billion investment, so how can he tell people that the NHS is safe under his watch?

Jeremy Hunt: We have not just protected the NHS budget, but increased it in real terms, which I think is a huge achievement given the state of the economy we inherited. [Interruption.] I simply say to the hon. Lady that the way to protect and secure NHS funding for the future is by making sure that there is a strong economy to pay for it. That is the single most important thing of all.

Nick Harvey: rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least we shall hear from a Devon knight.

Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Devon clinical commissioning group is embarking on a major programme of change next year, closing community hospital beds and replacing them with services at home. Do Ministers see that public and staff would have more confidence in the new services if they were being worked up first before getting rid of the existing services? Could the better care fund put money into the transition?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The better care fund is the biggest ever transfer of resources to preventive care and for integrated care. I saw last week in my hon. Friend’s own county fantastic integrated care in Torbay and Southern Devon NHS Trust, but I would be happy to discuss his particular concerns as soon as possible.

Point of Order

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Last Friday, at column 591 in Hansard, I intervened on the shadow Foreign Secretary to ask him to confirm that the German Government’s coalition agreement makes specific reference to EU treaty change. He denied this, and said that there was not a single reference in that document to it. However, at page 111, the document says:
	“Wir werden die vertraglichen Grundlagen der Wirtschaft und Wahrungsunion anpassen”,
	which means, “We will adapt the Treaty bases of the Economic and Monetary Union.” Should not the shadow Foreign Secretary, as a senior Privy Counsellor, come to the House and correct the record? He got it wrong; I got it right.

Mr Speaker: I am immensely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but whether his German accent would command the approval of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I leave open to speculation and conjecture. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has done himself and those who think like him on this matter a service. I am asked whether the shadow Foreign Secretary should come to the House in these circumstances, I think my response—I am well advised on these matters—is that there is no need for that to happen. It is a matter of judgment for the individual Member concerned. In any case, the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point very firmly, very clearly and, I hope, intelligently on the record. [Interruption.] It is true that there was a quotation in German, but I was exercising a generosity of spirit that I thought was appropriate. [Interruption.] I think we probably need to improve the tone somewhat.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	General Practitioner Surgeries (Rural Areas) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Tim Farron presented a Bill to require provision of General Practitioner surgeries in certain rural areas; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 105)

Sex and Relationships Education (Curriculum)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Diana Johnson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision to include education about sex and relationships, resilience against bullying and sexual abuse and ending violence against women and girls in the national curriculum; and for connected purposes.
	I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present this Bill. I do so in view of the many disturbing cases of child abuse and exploitation that have come to light around the country recently. They include abuse in Derby, Telford, Peterborough and Rotherham and in north Wales care homes, and high-profile cases such as those of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris. There is also an ever-growing online threat. There are more opportunities for those who wish to harm our children to have unfettered online access to them. Tens of thousands of people are known to access child abuse images online, and I believe that we have reached a point at which we must think afresh about what more can be done to keep our children and young people as safe as possible from child sexual exploitation and abuse. One part of that will be ensuring that all children have access to effective, high-quality, evidence-based relationship and sex education in all schools.
	I recently read Professor Jay’s report on the child exploitation scandal in Rotherham. Like all Members, I was shocked at what had happened to so many young people in the town, although we know that that was not an isolated incident. There are cases throughout the country of children being groomed and abused in towns and cities from Rochdale to Oxford. One particular instance in Professor Jay’s report caught my eye. Paragraph 8.13 states:
	“The young people we met in the course of the Inquiry were scathing about the sex education they received at school. They complained that it only focused on contraception…They thought the sex education was out of touch and needed to be updated.”
	What also caught my eye was that, according to the report, those young people had said that when a local organisation called Risky Business had arranged awareness-raising about child sexual exploitation, they had thought that it was very good, particularly when a survivor had spoken to them about their experience.
	A clear recommendation in a recent report by the Children’s Commissioner on a national approach to safeguarding and protecting children was that, as part of the national strategy to tackle abuse, we need relationship education which explains what healthy relationships look like—answering questions such as “What is sexual exploitation?” and covering issues of consent and domestic abuse—and which is delivered in all schools by people with specialist expertise and knowledge.
	Jane Lees, chair of the Sex Education Forum, has said:
	“The details of the Harris and Savile cases have been shocking, in particular, the long periods of time during which victims suffered in silence and the wide range of ages of children and adults that were abused. The widespread publicity and information
	around the cases helpfully resulted in further victims coming forward. But we need to ensure that there is a better understanding of abuse so that children and young people are kept safe. It is for this reason we need a long lasting approach based on a guarantee that all schools teach children good quality SRE which includes learning to recognise and be able to talk about inappropriate sexual contact by others. Learning about what is and isn’t abusive behaviour is essential to help keep children safe from harm. We must respond to these cases by creating a legacy of guaranteed education for all children.”
	For many years I have been convinced of the need to reform and overhaul the sex education that we provide for our young people, and to focus more widely on relationships and emotions. It is clear that the sex education that currently exists in schools is inadequate, just as the children in Rotherham said. It focuses on biology and what fits where, on sexual diseases, and on how not to get pregnant. We know that young people are often very savvy about the mechanics of sex, but lack any understanding of the potential dangers and threats that they face.
	Ofsted has stated in recent reports that SRE requires improvements in nearly 50% of secondary schools. Students felt that there was too little teaching about relationships and too much emphasis on the mechanics of reproduction, and that lessons in personal, social, health and economic education had avoided discussions of sexual and emotional feelings and controversial issues such as abuse, homosexuality and pornography. Other recent evidence from Ofsted shows that, in some instances, SRE was limited to as little as two hours taught in the last year of primary school. Ofsted also found that younger pupils did not always learn the correct names for the sexual parts of their bodies. This can leave children muddled about their bodies and hampered by a lack of language to report sexual abuse. Plus, when the Sex Education Forum surveyed more than 800 young people, it found that one in three either did not know or were unsure about where to get help if they were sexually assaulted.
	Now is the time to create a broad alliance of support for statutory sex and relationship education. A Mumsnet survey found that 92% parents wanted SRE to be compulsory at secondary school and that 69% wanted it to be compulsory at primary school, while 82% wanted it specifically to address sexual violence and bullying.
	Of course we want parents and families to be part of the discussions with youngsters about relationships and keeping safe, but we cannot stand back and hope that all families will have those conversations when we know that it is often the most vulnerable children who do not have family support in this area. If we equip all our children with the tools to help them to keep safe, we will know that they have been taught how to identify abusive behaviour and the tactics of perpetrators and groomers, and that they will have learned what sexual consent actually means and what a loving and respectful relationship looks like.
	We also know that there is huge support out there from charities and voluntary organisations. End Violence Against Women, the teaching unions, Brook, the Family Planning Association, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Terence Higgins Trust and many others are all calling for statutory SRE.
	At Hull’s recent Freedom festival in September, I came across a grooming prevention initiative that was being run by the Hull domestic abuse partnership team and the Soroptimists. It highlighted for young people the behaviours involved in acceptable and unacceptable relationships. It had cards with questions such as “If he really loves you, how does he treat you?” and answers “He respects and trusts you for what you are”; He is kind and makes you feel comfortable”; “He listens to you and tells you the truth”. Similarly, it asked what an abusive relationship might look like. The answers included “He frightens me”, “He gets violent”, “He bullies me”, “He teases me in public” and “He always blames me”. That is the type of work that needs to be done in all schools and taught to all children and young people.
	The time has now come for the Government to act. They have been woeful in looking at new ways of ensuring that we keep our children safe in the light of what has happened in recent times. The previous Education Secretary agreed to make financial education part of the national curriculum as he was concerned about students’ financial literacy. We now need to be concerned about keeping our children safe, and that means that we need compulsory relationship and sex education in all our schools. We want to build up our children’s self-esteem and confidence so that they are clear about what good healthy relationships look like and what is acceptable, and so that they know who to go to, and when, if they are concerned about unwanted or unacceptable behaviour towards them.
	Protecting children is everyone’s business, and schools and education have a vital part to play. This is about reinforcing good parenting, not replacing it. However, leaving it all to parents, which is the current approach and the approach of decades past, is not working. That approach is failing, and it is not fit to deal with the challenges of the future. In our free, open digital technology society, we cannot protect youngsters totally from every conceivable danger or from the increasing opportunities available to potential abusers. However, a modern education can equip young people with skills that can tilt the odds in their favour and firmly against those seeking to harm or exploit them. Why would we not want to give them those skills? Why would we not introduce compulsory relationship and sex education to keep all our children as safe as possible?

Philip Davies: I rise to oppose the Bill of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but I should begin by congratulating her on the impressive doughnut she managed to arrange for herself, masking the fact that the people around the doughnut were the only Members on her side actually in the Chamber at the time. I give her full marks for her doughnut, which was better than her speech.
	When a politician is faced with a problem—this is not necessarily a party political point—their solution always incorporates two ingredients. The first ingredient is that they have got to be seen to be doing something. I long for the day when a Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box and says, “Actually, that’s got nothing to do with the Government; that is for people to sort out for themselves.” They never do, however; politicians always want to highlight how important and powerful they are. The second ingredient in their solution is that what they
	propose does not really offend anybody. As long as they can come up with something that looks as if they are doing something and does not really offend anybody, that will be the solution they will go for, even if it will not make a blind bit of difference to the problem.
	[Interruption.] 
	The hon. Lady’s speech today was a prime example of a politician who wants to be seen to be doing something with a proposal that does not really offend anybody, and which will make absolutely no difference at all to the problem she has rightly highlighted.
	[Interruption.]
	The hon. Lady talks about the importance of dealing—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members are so intolerant of other people’s opinions that they do not like to listen to them—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, being heard, because he rarely has any difficulty in making himself heard, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Philip Davies: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	When the hon. Lady talks about the problems of child abuse, everybody agrees; of course we all agree that there is a massive problem with child abuse and it needs to be tackled. She highlighted the problems we found in Rotherham, but I am not sure most of my constituents would think the answer to that is to make sex education compulsory. Actually, I think what most people identified as the problem was the culture of political correctness that Labour councils up and down the country were cultivating, which prevented good people from speaking out about the disgusting things that were happening. If the hon. Lady had introduced an anti-political correctness Bill in Labour local authorities, it might have actually made some real difference. Trying to pretend that the solution to this problem is compulsory sex education is completely ludicrous.
	We have been having sex education in our schools for more than 40 years, and it was supposedly going to solve things such as teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies. Most of my constituents would probably conclude that the more sex education we have had since the early 1970s, the more teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies we have had. [Interruption.] Perhaps somebody might look at the evidence—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not want to hear this, but they might want to look at the evidence and then they might think that perhaps we should try less sex education in schools—or perhaps, even better, no sex education at all. That might be a better tactic.[Interruption.]
	I will point out—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Fiona Mactaggart, you are an excessively excitable individual on occasion. Calm yourself and seek to behave with restraint, and as the aspiring stateswoman you should want to be.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour party is known for its intolerance of other people’s opinions. I am just pleased Labour Members are highlighting that so effectively today.
	The sex education fanatics always point to Holland, because in Holland they have lots of sex education at a very young age and they have very low levels of teenage pregnancy, but the sex education fanatics never mention
	Italy. Italy has equally low levels of teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, but has very little sex education. A few years ago I looked at what Holland and Italy had in common, because then we might find out the true solution. What they have in common—and have had in common for many years—is that they have much closer family units, where families are much more likely to do things such as eat meals together. They have also historically been spectacularly ungenerous to single mothers in the benefits system and the housing allocation system. If we want to tackle issues such as teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, it would be much better to look at the benefit systems and the housing allocation system. That would make much more of a difference than this ridiculous obsession with more and more sex education.
	As sex education has failed, people like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North have said, “Actually, what we need is more sex education.” As we have had more sex education, however, the problem has got worse, as she has highlighted. She then changes tack and says, “Actually, what we need is better sex education.” Actually, one day everybody will have to conclude that what we need is less sex education, or even better, none.
	The hon. Lady spectacularly failed to mention the role of parents. The message we should be giving to parents is this: “Being a parent is a very responsible business. You should not enter into it lightly and there are things that only parents can do and are expected to do, because the state cannot fulfil the role of a parent for you.” We have got ourselves into a problem by saying, “If you’re a parent, don’t worry about what you do. Don’t worry about whether you’re doing a good job, because if you don’t do a good job of it—if you don’t care about it—the state will pick up the pieces for you.” That is an appalling message to send out to people. We should be saying, “This is a serious business and an important matter and there are certain things that are your responsibility alone, and the state cannot take those functions away.”
	Some parents may well be bad at teaching sex education, but who is to say that all teachers are good at teaching sex education? It may well be that many teachers are not very good at teaching sex education and that the parent would have been the best person to teach it to the child. We should not forget that point.
	My job as a parent is to bring up my children with my values and the values I think are important to instil in them. I do not want my children to have the teacher’s values instilled in them, whether or not I like or support them. These are things that should be done by parents and parents alone. Teachers should be there to teach children about things parents are not capable of teaching, not about the things that parents should be teaching if they were doing their job properly.
	If we want to tackle the problem of child abuse—which we all want to do in this House—let us look at the root causes: the political correctness of the Labour party that caused the problems in Rotherham. Let us not go down the route of this nanny state version of a Bill which is a complete waste of time and will make absolutely no difference at all, but fulfils the role I mentioned at the start, of a politician who wants to look as if they are doing something proposing something that does not really offend anybody. It offends me, and it offends people out in the country.
	I will not delay the House by calling for a Division, as there is an important debate coming up and I would not want to highlight how silly some of the Labour Members are in the Lobby. So we will just leave it at that, but I hope this Bill goes absolutely nowhere.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Diana Johnson, Simon Danczuk, Sarah Champion, Kevin Barron, John Healey, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Lyn Brown, Barbara Keeley, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Andrew Gwynne and Wayne David present the Bill.
	Diana Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed (Bill 101).

Recall of MPs Bill

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2012-13, Recall of MPs, HC 373, and the Government responses, HC 646 and Cm 8640.]

Greg Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Recall of MPs Bill fulfils a commitment made by the three main parties in their 2010 manifestos and in the coalition’s programme for government to establish a recall mechanism for MPs who have been found guilty of wrongdoing or misconduct. Allow me to quote from my own party’s manifesto:
	“at the moment, there is no way that local constituents can remove an MP found guilty of serious wrongdoing until there is a general election. That is why a Conservative government will introduce a power of ‘recall’ to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.”
	That is the manifesto on which I stood at the last election and the one that I stand by today.
	The Bill fulfils the commitment that we made in 2010, and, to put it candidly, seeks to reconcile differences within this legislature. Although we are agreed on the principle that MPs must be held to account when they have done something wrong, delivering on the practical detail of a recall mechanism has been more difficult. There is a wide range of views on how and whether it should be done.
	Members will concede that we have not rushed into this reform. The Government opened the debate on recall when they published their White Paper and draft Recall of MPs Bill in 2011. I am grateful to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its work. Its Chairman was in his place—I dare say he will be back.

Frank Field: He has been recalled!

Greg Clark: I suspect that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) would be robust in the face of such measures. The Committee has done considerable and painstaking work in conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of these proposals. It made some valuable recommendations, particularly on the recall petition process, most of which the Government have accepted and incorporated into the Bill.
	As Members who follow this debate know, the Committee also concluded that there was no need for a recall system as it did not see a gap in the disciplinary arrangements for MPs. That view is shared by some Members, but not by the Government.

Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend may know that I have recalled myself and that I am not standing again at the next general election, but I am struggling after 22 years in this House to understand the point of this Bill. I have seen people who have done wrong and have gone—quite rightly. Of the people caught up in the expenses scandal, several, quite rightly, have gone to prison. Denis MacShane went to prison and Patrick Mercer resigned his seat—quite rightly. But I can only think of two people who might have been affected by this Bill, and unless we make the
	powers retrospective to 2002, I do not see that it will affect the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Labour Benches whom I will not name because I have not mentioned it to him. Possibly, it might have affected one Member who was recently expelled from the Liberal Democrat party, but actually he has not committed a criminal offence as far as we know. So what exactly is the question that this Bill answers?

Greg Clark: First, let me say that we will miss my right hon. Friend in this House, and we are sorry that he has recalled himself. As he knows, MPs are disqualified from attending the House if they are sentenced to imprisonment for more than a year, but not below that. That is a gap, and this Bill puts forward a means of closing it. The other thing that this Bill does is enable the House to put before the electorate the question of whether an MP, who has been severely sanctioned by the Standards and Privileges Committee and suspended for more than 21 days, should continue in post. There are cases of Members who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for less than a year to whom this Bill would directly apply.

Charles Walker: My right hon. Friend has said that there are people who have been sentenced to prison to whom this Bill would directly apply. Who are those people?

Greg Clark: Clearly, this Bill would not apply retrospectively, but the two people who would have been caught are Chris Huhne and Eric Illsley.

Andrew Robathan: They have gone.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point that those Members chose to resign. The fact that it was their choice rather than there being an element of compulsion is the loophole that this Bill seeks to close.

Frank Field: Is the issue not somewhat different? It is about not how we feel, but how our constituents feel. We might be puzzled when people question our behaviour, but we are no longer in the world in which we can behave as we wish and for our constituents to push off. Our constituents will start defining what they think is acceptable behaviour by us. The key thing that we must ensure in this Bill, which I welcome, is that the threshold is such so that pernicious lobbies, such as the gun lobby in America if it were operating here, could not take Members out just because they disagree with their views.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and the right hon. Gentleman make my case for me: there is not agreement across the House. I merely observe that this Bill was a commitment that we made in the manifesto on which we fought the last election, and that is true for the three main parties. It is reasonable to reflect that there is an expectation on parties that stood on such a commitment that they will bring forward such a Bill.

Bob Neill: My right hon. Friend is making a good case, and I shall certainly be supporting him. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, is not the key issue that if we are to have a greater degree of openness towards our constituents, there must none the less be something
	that triggers an objective finding of bad behaviour—be it by conviction or by some other form of sanction? Without that, there is a risk that campaigning MPs who take up unpopular causes could be subject to victimisation by various pressure groups.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. He is taking up a popular cause, but there are occasions when Members should and will take up unpopular causes. It would be infinitely regrettable if they were to lose their seat in this House by a campaign that sought to silence them.

David Winnick: rose—

Greg Clark: Let me make a bit of progress. The diametrically opposed view is that a recall system should be implemented to allow the recall of MPs on any grounds and at any time, including disagreements with an MP’s stance on a matter of policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) makes the counter argument, but my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) takes the view that a policy disagreement between an MP and his or her constituents is such a ground. That is not the position of the Government, or the commitment that was made in the party manifestos.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining quite clearly the difference between what is misconduct and bad behaviour, which would get someone sacked from any other job in any other circumstances, and what is simply a disagreement over policy, where it would be possible for people to use a large amount of money effectively to remove an MP. But does he understand the concern that many members of the public have that the trigger for this at the moment is in a group of MPs in the form of the Standards and Privileges Committee? Does he understand that perhaps there needs to be an alternative mechanism that goes directly to the point of petition?

Greg Clark: I do understand both points that my hon. Friend makes. The question of a trigger is something that we will be debating both today and in Committee. Members who have served on Bill Committees with me will know that I have always taken a view that when experienced Members of Parliament debate a subject of great importance and interest—where the matters divide on party political lines—it is right and appropriate that the Government should reflect on the proposals, or amendments, put forward. I will confirm that we will do that and that we will take very seriously the views of the House.

David Winnick: Wrongdoing is always to be condemned. Is it not the case that MPs such as Sydney Silverman, who urged the abolition of capital punishment and who won the day after a long and hard campaign, and those who fought for the reform of homosexuality laws and for abortion and many other very unpopular issues, would have been in danger if this legislation had been in force?

Greg Clark: The drafting of the Bill reflects that undesirable risk that matters of conscience could result in the loss of a seat. A general election inevitably
	follows the MP’s selection. We all make policy arguments to our electorate each time, and the ability to do that is still in place.

Stewart Jackson: Several of us have serious worries about undermining not just the sovereignty of Parliament, but the sanctity of the general election. My right hon. Friend will know that Edmund Burke said in the 18th century that he was a representative, not a delegate. It is noteworthy that he was removed by the electors of Bristol in a general election shortly thereafter.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many hon. Members will be familiar with what Edmund Burke said:
	“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
	He made that point very strongly and was promptly thrown out by the electorate at the next election, which illustrates the point arising from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
	Our early exchanges have made it clear that the opposing poles—I hesitate to call them extremes—in the debate have good intentions, and reasonable and serious points are being made. In developing the proposals, the Government have tried to steer a sensible and reasonable course. We believe that recall has a role in dealing with serious wrongdoing. If an MP has been found guilty of serious wrongdoing and clear lines have been crossed, the public must have their say about whether that Member should remain in office.
	We have stopped short of enabling recall on any grounds so that we preserve the freedom of Members of Parliament to vote with their conscience and to take difficult decisions without facing constant challenges, at the public’s expense, from their political opponents. We have, of course, considered a range of recall models, including those used internationally, but there is no direct equivalent in a constitutional system such as ours anywhere in the world, so we are breaking new ground, and it is the tradition of the House and the country that we proceed with care when making constitutional change.

Frank Roy: I support the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister realises that it has serious flaws. For example, why would it not cover the MPs who took cash for questions in the 1990s?

Greg Clark: Clearly, like most legislation, the Bill will not apply retrospectively, but if the Standards Committee was to recommend that an MP be suspended for 21 or more sitting days due to precisely such a breach of the code, that Member would be liable for recall.

Richard Drax: I have been here long enough to know that Bills are all too often a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut. If the Bill goes through, I fear that it will be added to in time, as I know that many MPs and members of the public want to take things a lot further. That is why many Members are voicing their
	fears, which I share, that an MP’s position could be severely destabilised. I recommend caution and that we leave things as they are.

Greg Clark: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that we are proceeding with caution. We recognise that this is a novel constitutional step, and our traditions are that we exercise caution in such circumstances. The Prime Minister made it clear during last week’s Question Time that we regard the provisions as a minimum, and the various arguments that have been deployed today can be properly considered in Committee and on Report. Of course, whatever the House and the other place decide, it will be open to future Parliaments—one will begin next year—to consider whether to take things further still. That is the spirit in which we are proceeding.

Charles Walker: I would take the Government’s position more seriously if, at the start of this Parliament in 2010, they had not made it almost impossible for this House to recall a Government.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend takes us on to an area that could detain us for the rest of the day. He and I would prefer to be implementing all the Conservative party’s manifesto commitments, but the electorate did not give us a majority, so we formed a coalition, which I think has made great achievements, not least by turning around the economy through its effective, long-term economic plan.
	Let me set out the provisions that will govern the debate not just today, but in Committee and on Report. There are two conditions under which a recall petition would be opened. The first trigger is if a Member of Parliament is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. At present, any MP who is imprisoned for more than a year is automatically disqualified from Parliament, but if they receive a sentence of 12 months or less, they can keep their job until the next general election. The Bill will close that loophole.
	The imprisonment of a Member of Parliament will, quite understandably, cause many constituents to question their faith in that MP. Incarceration not only indicates serious wrongdoing, but prevents that Member from doing their job effectively, so the Government believe that constituents should be able to decide whether there should be a by-election in such circumstances. Of course, it would remain open for the recalled Member of Parliament to stand as a candidate in that by-election, should they wish to justify the actions that led to that sentence of imprisonment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I broadly support the Bill, but with regard to that point, is it strictly necessary? It is open to the House—this has been done in the past—to expel a Member who has been sentenced to prison. Is it not the failure to use our existing powers, rather than a need to create new powers, that is at issue?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend, who is learned and reflective on these matters, is right that the power to expel a Member exists. However, constituents do not have the power to decide whether a seat should be vacated, but that would be available under the Bill.

Jonathan Edwards: What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Governments about using the Bill to empower the devolved institutions, if they so wish, to introduce their own recall mechanism?

Greg Clark: I think I have made it clear that the Bill is not the last word on recall. It will apply specifically to Members of Parliament and it will govern simply the procedures of the House. It has been difficult enough to establish a consensus in this House, let alone in the devolved Administrations and beyond. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), it will be open to future Parliaments to take a different view.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will be well aware that five Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in the House. Will he make it absolutely clear to those absentee Northern Ireland MPs—and to the House and the general public—that the Bill will apply equally to them?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady makes an important point in the context of Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Bill would not apply to those Members because they have not taken the Oath to sit in the House, but she will no doubt wish to raise that point in Committee.

David Davis: I favour a recall Bill and understand that my right hon. Friend has found it difficult to get an agreement, but might we at least have some logic in this process? Under the mechanism set out in the Bill, a Member of Parliament who was arrested at a demonstration and imprisoned would be forced to take part in a new election if 10% of his constituents disapproved of his position.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend clearly exposes one of the aspects of our debate. The decision would be in the hands of that Member’s constituents in two respects: a petition of 10% of the electorate would be required to occasion a recall by-election; and then that Member could stand in the by-election. My right hon. Friend has experience of standing in a by-election—not caused by any wrongdoing, I hasten to say, but because he was making a point—and he won the support of his constituents for his action, so his experience might provide some reassurance.

Frank Field: It really comes back to the point—many Members have made it—about the threshold needing to be high enough. There are clearly two ways in which people view the electorate. I was under recall by the Trots for 10 years, and it was the electorate who saved me. It is possible to look to one’s voters as a bulwark of freedom, not as a group of people who wish to destroy us.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. None of us would be here today had we not had the endorsement of our constituents, and none of us should be afraid of that endorsement.
	The second trigger is if an MP is suspended from the House for 21 sitting days or more. A suspension of such length indicates that the individual in question has
	done something seriously wrong, and constituents should be able to have their say about whether their MP deserves to keep his or her seat.

Frank Dobson: With the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: I will make some progress before giving way again.
	Comparisons with the second trigger provisions published in the draft Bill will reveal changes that have arisen from fruitful discussions with the Standards Committee and others. The Bill’s proposals are designed to work alongside the existing arrangements and processes for investigating misconduct, and the changes that have been made ensure that recall petitions open automatically as a consequence of a substantial period of suspension. The Bill does not specify on what grounds the Committee, or indeed the House as a whole, would consider a suspension of that length to be appropriate, but I look forward to hearing the views of Members on both sides of the House, both today and in Committee, on the length of suspension proposed and on the operation of the second trigger more generally.
	Some will say that the Bill still gives MPs too great a role in triggering recall, but we want to ensure that it complements the disciplinary procedures that already exist and the work of the independent commissioner and the Standards Committee. It is a long-standing principle of our political system that Parliament has sole jurisdiction over its own affairs and is free to operate without interference from the courts, the Crown or any other individual or body. The Standards Committee is currently undertaking a review to look at ways of improving its disciplinary procedure and so has an opportunity to consider these important matters. In other words, the decisions that that Committee will take, given the way that the Bill interfaces with its sanctions, allow whatever the Committee in this House decides should be the standards arrangements to link into the recall proposals. The Government do not wish to impose how the House chooses to govern its affairs and have drafted the Bill accordingly. That principle is of great importance to our parliamentary democracy, and it seems to me that we should exhaust all other avenues before casually setting it aside.

Duncan Hames: Surely the Minister realises that the reliance on the Standards Committee goes to the root of public dissatisfaction with the Bill. It might be the case, as he suggested earlier, that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has faith in the operation of the Standards Committee, but many members of the general public—our electors—simply do not.

Greg Clark: That is exactly why the Committee is reflecting upon its current arrangements and considering whether they should be amended.
	I should also say—this is the earliest opportunity I have had—that I was wrongly advised in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She will be reassured to know that the provisions would apply to Sinn Fein MPs.

Stephen Mosley: I agree entirely with the two triggers that my right hon. Friend has outlined, but surely there is a third case: where a Member is not doing his duty. In local government there is a rule whereby councillors who do not attend meetings or vote for six months are automatically disqualified. Surely that, too, should be a trigger to allow a recall.

Greg Clark: As I have made clear, there are many views about the level of the recall and what the mechanism should be. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to the debate and think that all Members will understand the point he makes. One of the consequences of imprisonment, of course, is that an MP is prevented from attending, so at least part of that is covered by that provision.

Andrew Lansley: Although the decision to suspend a Member is one for this House, the effective trigger for that process is a recommendation from the Standards Committee. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that it is important not only that we recognise that it results from an independent inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, but that in the current review we strengthen the lay participation and voice in the Standards Committee? Does he agree not only that that should include an increase in the number of lay members, but that this House should hear directly from the lay members if in any respect they do not agree with the conclusion of the Standards Committee as a whole?

Greg Clark: That is exactly what I was alluding to when I said that the Standards Committee is considering ways to strengthen its credibility with members of the public. My right hon. Friend has substantial experience of those issues from his time as Leader of the House. I am sure that he will make an important and serious contribution to the debate.
	I recognise that the creation of a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament clearly raises the question of how recall might fit with the disciplinary arrangements for other office holders in future. The triggers in the Bill have been carefully designed to fit with the particular rules of this House, and for that reason cannot be automatically applied to the recall of other elected office holders. This is not, and is not designed to be, a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation—that would be even more difficult to establish a consensus around—but we must of course learn the appropriate lessons from its implementation, which might in future be applied to other areas. I know that there will be debate, both today and later, on which other areas it might be appropriate to extend recall to. However, this Bill is narrowly about Members of Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: Returning to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the efficacy of primary legislation, the House might know that in 1947 the Labour MP Garry Allingham was expelled from the House for writing disobliging comments about fellow Members—not for any criminal offence—so there is a precedent for expelling a Member whose conduct falls below that which most electors would think suitable and appropriate.

Greg Clark: I was not aware of that and so am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says. I see that the Government Whip is sending a note, perhaps recommending that to her colleagues in the Whips Office as an available sanction.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Greg Clark: I will make some progress, because many Members wish to speak.
	I will turn briefly to the conduct of petitions once they are triggered by the provisions of the Bill. The Government’s priority has been to develop voting procedures that fit with what the public rightly expect from any official democratic election in this country. Safeguards must be in place to ensure that voting is robust, fair and open. I will not set out this process in detail here, but I look forward to debates in Committee on the clauses and schedules. Under the Bill’s proposals, 10% of eligible constituents would need to sign the petition for it to be successful. If at the end of the eight-week recall period the 10% threshold had been met, the MP would vacate his or her seat and a by-election would be held. There would be no legal barrier to the unseated individual standing in the by-election.
	As I have described, we have made changes to the Bill as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny. I appreciate that there will be—there have been already—strong views on these proposals, and I welcome the House’s serious consideration and discussion of them. I remind the House that the transition to representative democracy did not take place in a single step, and nor will the progress we make towards more direct democracy—something I have always believed in. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that our predecessors were sometimes excessively cautious, not least in extending the franchise to women. Nevertheless, our country has gained more than it has lost from the British preference for evolutionary over revolutionary change. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between holding Members of Parliament to account while ensuring that they can do their job without facing frivolous or politically motivated petitions. We want a recall process that is fair, open and robust, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the tone and tenor of the Minister’s opening speech and in particular the commitment that he has made seriously to consider amendments that will strengthen the Bill. I will come to that during my remarks.
	This is a debate of critical importance to our politics and democracy. People feel more disconnected from Parliament and more disenchanted with the political process than possibly ever before. Polling and academic research reveal the pre-eminence of this distrust, but all of us know that the most vivid displays of antipathy are found on the doorstep when we meet voters while we are campaigning. People feel let down by politics, they feel angry, and they feel that too often their voice is not heard and that we politicians are out of touch.
	Of course, politicians have never been the most popular people. It is in the nature of our job that we have to make unpopular decisions at times, as the Minister rightly said. But in 2009 the relationship between politics
	and the people reached a nadir during the scandal about MPs’ expenses. We can never be complacent or overestimate just how much damage was done to the standing of politics, politicians and this House with the public by what was revealed in 2009. In tough times, when families had been taking difficult decisions about their own household spending and with the economy in recession, revelations about the abuse of MPs’ expenses understandably left the public furious with the system and furious with the individuals involved.

Richard Drax: I am tired of this general slagging-off of people who work so hard for their constituencies. Like many of us here, I was not an MP then, but I admit that some dishonourable behaviour sadly occurred in this House. What we need to restore is honour; we do not need legislation for that.

Stephen Twigg: I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is about how all of us do the job and about the culture of politics, but it is also about legislation. I will come to that now.

Mark Field: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the level of distrust, but does he accept that the lack of independence of many MPs is the biggest concern for many of our constituents? Does he not think that one of the concerns about a recall Bill broadly, which I support, is that it would largely undermine that sense of the independence of the individual MP?

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Later I shall refer to a distinction that others have made in interventions and which the Minister himself made between our conduct as Members of Parliament and the issues that we vote on, and how we are held to account for our voting. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point that although recall is, in my opinion, a correct mechanism for dealing with misconduct, it is a more questionable mechanism for dealing with issues to do with voting. One consequence of a particular model of recall could be to undermine the independence of MPs, for the reason that he gave.
	In 2010 each of the main parties made proposals to change the system in response to the tide of distrust that I described. As the Minister said, each of us had a commitment to some form of recall in our manifesto. The Minister said that the Government have not rushed into this. That is an understatement: it is a shame that it has taken more than four years to have a Bill before the House. At one point both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister promised to pursue a new politics of democracy and transparency. Well, it has taken them quite a while to get round to it, and now that they have, neither of them seems very pleased with the Bill before the House.
	The Deputy Prime Minister, who led on the Bill that was published earlier in this Parliament, said this summer that he agreed with the critics of that Bill, and just yesterday he said he wished that the latest attempt—the Bill before us today—had gone further. The Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, four and a half years after declaring his intent to pursue a new politics, said that the current Bill is the minimum acceptable. Surely after four and a half years they could have come up with something better than this.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument about the disgust that many of our constituents still feel about politics and politicians, and about the importance of the Bill. Does he think that the measures relating to accountability and in particular to MPs adjudicating on themselves are strong enough?

Stephen Twigg: I will come to those issues in a moment. The straightforward answer is no, I do not think those measures are strong enough. During the Committee stage we need to strengthen them significantly.
	Labour supports recall. Our manifesto commitment in 2010 stated:
	“MPs who are found responsible for financial misconduct will be subject to a right of recall”.
	We need a system that improves accountability and gives more power to the public to hold their representatives to account between elections. That is a matter of fairness. People go to work each day and they know that if they break the rules, if they behave inappropriately at work, they may face the sack. The job of a Member of Parliament should be no different. If we are to regain the trust of the people, we cannot place ourselves outside or above this basic principle.
	However, the system of recall needs to reflect what the job of a Member of Parliament is. We are not delegates to this place. We have a representative democracy, in which Members of Parliament are sent to represent their constituencies, and sometimes that involves making difficult decisions. A balance has to be drawn between giving people the opportunity to recall MPs for misconduct, and allowing MPs to make difficult decisions. For misconduct, recall makes sense. For holding MPs to account for their voting record, general elections are the appropriate mechanism. We will support this Bill on Second Reading, but look forward to strengthening it in Committee.
	We believe that the Bill is an unacceptably minimalist interpretation of the right to recall. For example, as the Minister set out, one of the triggers in the Bill is when an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for at least 21 sitting days or 28 calendar days. Had this rule been in operation over the past 25 years, there are only two occasions on which Members of Parliament would have been caught by this proposed change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) pointed out, for the Members of Parliament who were caught up in the “cash for questions” scandal in the 1990s, because of the nature of the punishment they faced, recall would not have been triggered.

Angus MacNeil: Can the hon. Gentleman envisage a situation where the political pressure would be on the Standards Committee to increase the penalties? The political pressure means that 21 days’ suspension has to be given as a punishment to bring in the trigger mechanisms, so in some ways the trigger is a foolish mechanism, and the Standards Committee probably should not be involved at all.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I will address the role of the Standards Committee in a moment. These are precisely the sort of issues that we want to address in Committee next week.

Greg Clark: To correct the shadow Minister and for the information of the House, I point out that there are in fact six Members of Parliament who would have been caught by the provisions. I mentioned Chris Huhne and Eric Illsley on the imprisonment aspect. In terms of suspension, there would have been four more—Teresa Gorman, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), Denis MacShane and Patrick Mercer.

Stephen Twigg: The Minister is including Members who resigned from the House before the Standards Committee’s proposals were considered, but I acknowledge what he says. I still think that six is a very small number, considering the scale of the challenge that we face. With reference to the particular example that my hon. Friend cited of the “cash for questions” scandal in the 1990s, there is a concern that the length of period covered by the Bill would not have affected the MPs in that case.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman is providing a strong critique of the Government’s Bill and I agree with much of what he says. At the Committee stage there will be a wide range of views about what needs to be done to improve the Bill. The indication is that the Conservative party will be offering a free vote. Will we hear that from the Labour party as well?

Stephen Twigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will refer shortly to some of the proposals that he has made. I am not in a position to make announcements about the Opposition’s whipping arrangements or the Government’s, but they will be made available in due course.

Chris Bryant: While we are correcting the record, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who is no longer in his place, said earlier that Garry Allingham was thrown out of the House for passing on notes. In fact, he was suspended from the House because he had alleged that other MPs had been bribed by journalists with drinks to give them tittle-tattle. The only person who had been thus involved was the said Member, Garry Allingham. Interestingly, the one person who felt that he could not vote to suspend a man for drinking too much with a journalist was Winston Churchill.

Stephen Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.
	The example of the “cash for questions” scandal in the 1990s exemplifies the weakness in the Bill. If we accept the principle of recall, then surely such clear examples of misconduct should fall within the criteria that I set out.

David Heath: The stories mentioned by the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) demonstrate part of the problem, which is the self-importance of this House and its willingness to act as a gentlemen’s club rather than, at the end of the day, giving the verdict to our constituents. That is why this Bill, with I hope, a widening of the trigger mechanism, is so important.

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree. That is why the principle of recall is so important and why this Bill is welcome, but I hope that over the coming weeks the House will work hard to strengthen its provisions.

Anne-Marie Morris: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that the Bill needs to be strengthened and expanded. We have heard several interventions about the limits that result from the triggers. Would he trust the electorate such that, instead of having triggers, we simply said that a reason for recall had to be given, with the name of a sponsor calling for it? Might that be a better way forward, because we would not try artificially to prescribe in advance what the trigger might be?

Stephen Twigg: Clearly, we will have amendments to that effect before the House meets next Monday, and it is right that we consider them in detail in Committee. The danger with that very pure approach is that we could cross the line between misconduct and how we vote as Members of Parliament. That is problematic, for reasons that I will set out later.

Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend think that there is any room in this Bill to deal with the situation where Members of Parliament are elected and then do not take their seats, but continue to get substantial amounts of money? Surely that is, in some way, bringing this House into disrepute.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is tempting me into an area that I do not think I will be tempted into. I am sure she will have opportunities to raise those issues in the House at later stages.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to tempt him in a related but different direction. Will he confirm to the House that the Labour party welcomes the fact that this Bill extends to absentee MPs, given that the Minister said, correcting his earlier reply to me, that it applies to all MPs on the day after polling day, not when they take their seats, and therefore does apply to Sinn Fein?

Stephen Twigg: Yes indeed. It is very important that this legislation applies to all elected Members of Parliament from the point at which they are elected. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to confirm that from the Dispatch Box.
	It is important that the public are able to hold Members of Parliament to account for serious wrongdoing and misconduct—for example, taking financial reward for everyday parliamentary activity. Any system of recall needs to pass that rudimentary test. In Committee we will look at ways to strengthen that aspect of the Bill.
	The length of suspension required to trigger a recall petition is currently too high, and it fails to catch some of the clear cases of misconduct that we have witnessed. There is also the question of how we can and should improve the process of suspension that would lead to recall. As the Minister confirmed, the Bill does not mention changes to that process, or, indeed, changes to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I hope that in Committee we will look at ways in which we can ensure that the process is not party-politicised and, as a number
	of Members have suggested in interventions, more independent. It is sensible to rebalance the Standards and Privileges Committee so that it does not reflect a Government majority, whoever is in power, and to increase the lay membership of the Committee, as the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said.
	The second trigger in the Bill allows for a petition if an MP receives a custodial sentence. As the Minister said, some of the people who would have been caught by these proposals received a custodial sentence for political protest. One of my predecessors in Liverpool, Terry Fields, who was the MP for Liverpool Broadgreen, would have faced a recall petition when he was sent to prison for refusing to pay the poll tax. We need to bear these issues in mind when we are debating this aspect of the Bill. At the same time, I think it would be widely felt that if a Member of Parliament committed a crime and was sent to prison, it would be appropriate that, whatever their motive, the public in their constituency had the opportunity to sack them if they wished to do so rather than moving to a general election.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman’s point about Terry Fields proves exactly why it is so hard to define what is wrongdoing. In those circumstances, it would not just have been a matter of his constituents having the choice of recalling him—it would have required just 10% of them to throw him out of his job, even if he might then have clawed his way back through a by-election. That is one of many problems with the Bill.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point of substance that we need to consider as the Bill progresses. I imagine that Terry Fields would have been re-elected by a massive majority for the stand that he took against the poll tax.

Wayne David: A moment ago my hon. Friend referred to the need for lay members to be involved in the process of trigger determination. Does he agree, however, that it is important that we do not just get the usual kinds of people but have genuine members of the public involved?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am glad that he has made that point. That will be a crucial part of our consideration not only in Committee but in some of the wider discussion that is happening about the future of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The political membership is contentious in terms of MPs policing ourselves. We could address that by ensuring that the lay membership is genuinely credible with the wider public.

Douglas Carswell: There has been some discussion about the need to ensure that we have more lay members involved in deciding whether to trigger a recall. Surely the lay members are called constituents, and we should have a mechanism that allows them to decide whether a recall is triggered. They are, after all, the lay members who count most.

Stephen Twigg: I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue for a very long time and has a consistent stance that is reflected in his intervention.
	I am going to set out my thinking on such a proposal in a moment, so if he could be patient I will respond to his point.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman said that Terry Fields would probably have been re-elected with a massive majority. Would it not be a failure of any legislation if it brought about a situation where a Member faced a by-election and came back with a massive majority? Surely the point of recall legislation is to put the issue to the test on something that is marginal and not something where there could be a situation involving vexatious constituents who perhaps opposed the poll tax and knew full well that the MP would be returned with a massive majority.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the risk of a relatively small minority of—to use his phrase—vexatious constituents abusing the system. That is a risk with a pure recall system, as I will explain in a moment.

Charles Walker: I have great admiration for members of the public—after all, they are my electorate—but could the shadow Minister define “genuine members of the public”?

Stephen Twigg: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question. Did I use that phrase?

Charles Walker: The shadow Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) that we should involve “genuine members of the public”, but what does that mean? “Genuine members of the public” is a political phrase like “innocent victims”—I have never come across a guilty victim. What are “genuine members of the public”?

Stephen Twigg: They are those who are representative of the full range of the public. Often people who are appointed to some of these committees will tend to be—how shall I put it?—the great and the good, who are not necessarily entirely representative of the full range of the public. That is what I understood by the phrase, “genuine members of the public”. Of course, there will be strong opinions on both sides of this debate, which is why the Committee stage will be so important.
	Let me now address the amendments that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is likely to table. First, I welcome his contribution and that of all Members on the committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). It is probably fair to say that the Government may not have put this Bill before the House had it not been for their hard work and persistence. The proposals of the hon. Member for Richmond Park manage to avoid some of the problems associated with the Government’s Bill. As he said in his intervention, there would be no issues about unfairly allowing a petition when an MP is imprisoned for protest; about having to debate the length of suspension from this place; or about the independence of any recall trigger mechanism. His likely amendments would allow for the trigger to be in the hands of the people, and there is a simplicity to that proposal that is, of course, attractive.
	The hon. Gentleman’s proposals, however, run into trouble when we assess the potential effect on the constitutional role of Members of Parliament. If we accept that the job of an MP is to be a representative, not a delegate, that has consequences for where we stand in this debate. MPs on both sides of the House need to be able to sometimes make difficult decisions. Sometimes they have to fulfil roles in government and there is a risk that the hon. Gentleman’s likely amendments could challenge that.
	For example, the hon. Gentleman’s model of recall—the pure model—has the potential to give enormous power to well-funded, wealthy groups and organisations that could run concerted campaigns to pressure MPs to act in a certain way.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. We need look no further than the United States, where the Koch brothers use their multibillion-dollar war chest for no other partisan reason than to get rid of individuals who do not agree with their warped sense of the world.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which reinforces a concern felt by many—not just in this House, but outside it—that without proper regulation a system of pure recall could be subject to abuse.

Richard Drax: May I add to the excellent point the shadow Minister has just made that if there were three or four petitions against a sitting MP during a five-year term, their reputation would be damaged, perhaps unfairly, and their chance of being re-elected severely reduced? That cannot be right.

Stephen Twigg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will return to that point in a moment.
	The constant pressure of notices of intent, even if they are supported by only a very small minority in a constituency—a notice of intent could be triggered by just 5% of the electorate—could prove destabilising to the ability of the Member of Parliament to fulfil his or her duties, both in this place and, frankly, in their constituency. Politicians often have to make decisions that are unpopular in their constituency, but they may be decisions that are ultimately right for the country as a whole. In our system, a Secretary of State is accountable to this House, but if they are a Member of this House they also have a constituency. Does it make sense for a Secretary of State to face recall for making a decision that may be unpopular in their own constituency but may make sense for the country as a whole?

David Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our committee, but I think he underestimates the wisdom of the public. When I had my by-election, the policy I was campaigning against had the support of 72% of the public, and yet I was returned by 75%. In the proposal authored by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the thresholds are sizeable: there would need to be, in effect, 15,000 votes in a normal constituency and then 50% of the constituency
	would have to agree before a recall could be triggered. That is a much higher threshold than this rather ill-thought-through Government proposal.

Stephen Twigg: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next and, Members will be relieved to hear, final part of my speech. I accept that his committee produced rather high thresholds for the later stages of its proposal, but the 5% threshold for a notice of intent is low. There are sensible ways in which some of these concerns could be countered. Is there a way in which we could ensure that MPs could be recalled only for their misconduct?

David Winnick: Is there not a danger in all this of intimidating Members of Parliament against taking up unpopular causes? For example, as a Labour Back Bencher in the late 1950s, Barbara Castle argued for a settlement in Cyprus when British troops were being killed by EOKA. It was a very unpopular cause and one can well imagine what would have happened to her had there been recall legislation. She may have survived it, but she would have felt under intense pressure. At the end of it all, of course, she was right: there was a settlement in Cyprus.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes that case strongly, as have others, both in this place and elsewhere. That is why I reaffirm the distinction between causes, which my hon. Friend has just mentioned and for which the election is the vehicle for accountability, and conduct, which is, rightly, the focus for recall.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the shadow Minister give an indication of the Labour party’s thinking? If the House of Commons is going to have a recall mechanism, no matter what it is, does the Labour party agree with the principle that the other Parliaments of the British state, including the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament, should also have the ability to introduce their own recall mechanism, whatever type it may be, should they so wish?

Stephen Twigg: That is a matter that should be decided by those devolved bodies. I understand that there have been discussions in Scotland about doing so. [Interruption.] I am being tempted to announce a policy on Welsh devolution, but that is slightly outside my remit. I think that, in principle, if this House has a reserve power, it should give it up so that it becomes a matter for the devolved bodies themselves to decide, but a decision would need to be made by those bodies. I suspect that I may have moved party policy on, so some clarification might be given later, but the principle has to be one whereby the decision is made by the appropriate body.
	By the way—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who will wind up the debate, will talk about this—there is also a very good case to be made that the kinds of recall mechanisms we are discussing for Members of Parliament should be considered for other positions, such as those of police and crime commissioners and mayors. That may be outside the scope of this Bill, but we should consider it at an early opportunity.
	I will close with some final comments on the proposals of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I have said that we should look at whether there are ways in which
	MPs could be recalled only for their misconduct. To address the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), could there be a limited number of recall petitions per Parliament? Some of the American states with the power of recall limit the number of times it can be allowed within a legislative term. Are the proposed thresholds reasonable? Could there be a higher threshold at the early stage?
	Members on both sides of the House are in favour of the principle of recall. [Interruption.] I hear some dissent. I think that most Members of this House, as will probably be demonstrated in today’s vote, are in favour of the principle of recall. There will be very important debates in Committee about what the best system might be and how best to deliver it. As I have said, the Bill needs to be strengthened considerably from its current state in order for it to have meaning. The “minimum acceptable”—which was the phrase used by the Prime Minister last week—is simply not good enough. The public will, rightly, expect more. We will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but we will work hard in Committee to strengthen it.

Zac Goldsmith: Of all the promises made in the heat of the expenses scandal, recall was the only one that resonated properly with voters. It was a promise that they could hold their MPs to account at all times, with a mechanism for removing an MP who had lost the confidence of a majority of their constituents. I know that some colleagues thought it was a foolish promise for the party leaders to make and that anger levels would eventually die down and people would eventually re-engage with the political process, but that misses the point. Voter turnout has been decreasing for years and years, and party membership has been plummeting to miserable levels over a very long period. Five years on from that scandal, the general confidence levels in MPs are at an all-time low—26% according to a recent survey. The expenses scandal did not start that trend; it cemented it and confirmed a prejudice that people, rightly or wrongly, already had.
	I think that most hon. Members recognise that change is not just necessary but inevitable, just as it was at other times in our history when events required politics to adapt and move on. When the industrial revolution changed society beyond all recognition, the first Reform Act became inevitable. It was inevitable that women would eventually be given the right to vote, despite the resistance to it. Well, the world has changed again.
	When the last big step was taken in 1969—the voting age was lowered to 18 for all men and women—the only information that people had about their MP, other than the odd scandal in the newspapers, was via very selectively crafted newsletters. Today, people will know how their Members have spoken in this debate and how they have voted at the end of it within seconds of their doing so. With 24-hour news, the internet and social media, we are in a world that is completely different, and that has happened very quickly. People have simply never had more or better information, but politics has not even begun to adjust.
	People know so much more about what we are up to in this place, but that has merely compounded the sense that once they have voted there is nothing they can do
	to hold their MP to account. We have a system in which once an MP is selected they are inviolable until the next election. An MP could switch parties, refuse to attend Parliament at all, refuse to meet constituents in any context, systematically break each and every promise they had ever made to get voted in or even disappear off on holiday for five years, and their constituents could do absolutely nothing about it. Such a formula is no longer sustainable.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman knows that I support his amendments. He mentions hon. Members not attending Parliament. Does he include the Sinn Fein Members who do not take their seats and never come into the Chamber?

Zac Goldsmith: The very basis of the version of recall that I and, I am pleased to say, a great many colleagues will seek to bring forward next week—I will explain it in a few moments—is that it is down to the voters. If the conduct of Sinn Fein representatives is below what people expect, for that reason or perhaps others people should have the power to make such a decision for themselves; they should not require the permission of the House. I do not pretend that recall is the answer to the problems that I have identified, but it is an answer.

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend is making very powerful arguments that he has held dear for a long time. May I suggest that the overwhelming majority of people who stand for and get elected to this place do so for good and noble reasons and want to serve their constituency and their country? We should acknowledge that in this debate, and not always talk down the nobility of being in politics.

Zac Goldsmith: I could not agree more. That is precisely why I believe that we need a proper recall system—not some shenanigans conveying the impression that they give people recall powers without actually giving them any power at all—that would give Members, such as my hon. Friend and many others, a permanent implied mandate. In a few moments, I will explain why recall will help to give dignity and to restore nobility to this place, but if he thinks that I have not addressed his concerns properly, I invite him to intervene again.
	Recall would allow people in extreme circumstances—where a clear majority of them have lost confidence in their MP—to remove their MP between elections. It would give people a sense of ownership over their democracy, which would help in and of itself.
	Recall is not a new or radical idea. It exists in various forms in about 30 countries on five continents, including Poland, Canada, Germany, Japan, India, South Korea, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Ecuador. It has existed in the US for more than 100 years, and in Switzerland for even longer. It is a good idea—it works—and it is great that the mainstream parties have finally accepted it.

Kevan Jones: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about recall empowering voters. In practice, would it not do what it does in the United States, which is to empower wealthy individuals who are not happy with what their representative is doing to mobilise against them? It would empower wealthy
	individuals, such as the hon. Gentleman, to influence events in a way that my ordinary constituents and I cannot?

Zac Goldsmith: I will explain why such concerns are groundless during my speech, but I will make one point, partly in response to the Opposition spokesman. Concerns about expenditure during the recall process are a matter for regulations; the amendments that my colleagues and I seek to introduce would not tamper with the Government’s proposed regulations on expenses. That separate technical issue can be very easily addressed.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but that is not the point. Expenditure limits can be put on the recall election, but the campaigning in the lead-up to such an election would undermine the representative in getting their constituents—

Douglas Carswell: Trust the voters.

Kevan Jones: This is not about trusting the voters, but about putting influence in the hands of a small group of very wealthy individuals. If the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), with the wealth he has, wanted to shift a Member of Parliament, he could do it.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman takes a very dim view of his electorate if he thinks that that is so easy. Irrespective of that, the two-month petition stage before a referendum will be regulated, so his cost arguments simply do not apply.

Kevan Jones: What happens in practice in the United States is that individuals who take against a policy or a state or national representative can use their tremendous wealth to use a campaign in the lead-up to the recall election to undermine such a representative. The idea that that is somehow empowering the voters is not the case. Recall empowers very wealthy individuals who could then—

Douglas Carswell: You don’t trust the voters.

Kevan Jones: I do trust the electorate. The hon. Gentleman should stop chuntering from a sedentary position. The fact is that recall will give influence over who the Member of Parliament is not to the majority of the electors but to a small group of very wealthy individuals.

Zac Goldsmith: To my knowledge, in the United States there are no limits on expenditure and on broadcasters; in this country, we have limits on both. Even during the 100 years of recall in that wild west environment of the United States, there have been only 20 successes out of 40 attempts. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments simply do not match the experience of recall anywhere in the world. They are complete nonsense.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend not agree that recall is not about licensing vexatious attempts to unseat MPs? Frankly, the public would see through that, particularly if it was frequent and clearly about political and personal grudges. There would be checks and balances in the process, and
	we can trust the public to see through such attempts. Surely recall is about empowering our constituents to ensure that they do not feel let down and failed by their local Member of Parliament.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is exactly right—I hope in due course to make such points as well as she has—including about the fact that the protection lies in the threshold, and I will come on to that in a second.

Heather Wheeler: When I sat on the Standards and Privileges Committee, it was interesting to see the sort of complaints that we received. Regularly, there were 28 complaints a month of which only one was relevant to what the Committee could look at, and it quite often ended up as a case of “No harm, no foul”. My difficulty with my hon. Friend’s amendments is that the work load created would sometimes be absolutely phenomenal. I want a very high threshold to avoid the problem of vexatious complaints.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I will address her points properly, but if she feels that I have not done so, I invite her to feel free to intervene at any point.

John Redwood: I think that my hon. Friend’s proposals include not having a recall opportunity within six months of a general election, for the obvious reason that there would soon be an opportunity to get rid of the MP if he or she were that unpopular. If we repeal or move on from the law on five-year Parliaments and go back to a system in which the Prime Minister has discretion on when to call a general election, how would that work?

Zac Goldsmith: That would open up a whole new debate, but that is for another time. In the Bill put together by the committee, the six-month limit relates to the start of an election, not the end, so it is possible to have a recall process after an election, but not within six months of an election being called. The reason is that someone may be elected on a spurious basis; for example, on the basis of a whole tangle of lies that are then exposed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Zac Goldsmith: I will make some progress and then take as many interventions as there is an appetite for.
	It is good that our three mainstream parties and all the smaller parties have understood that recall is necessary. That is a sign of real progress. However, what is not great is the Bill that we are debating today. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that it represents a small step in the right direction. If only it did. I believe that the Bill in its current form will set democracy back, and I want to try to explain why.
	For one thing, the criteria in the Bill are so narrow, as we have heard from many Members today, that the process will be virtually pointless. It will still be possible for an MP to switch parties, refuse to attend Parliament, disappear on holiday or break every promise that they made before the election without qualifying for recall. The public will discover, with the very first scandal, that they have been misled. The Bill will inflame the very
	resentment and anger that gave rise to it. Extraordinarily, the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday called it “the people’s recall”. I call it madness.
	Another reason is that, instead of giving voters powers to hold this institution to account, the proposal is that the institution will, effectively, hold itself to account. Except for when an MP is jailed, voters will need our permission to initiate the recall process. Panicking because of the backlash that he has received, the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that he would create a panel of ordinary independent people to adjudicate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) has pointed out, we already have that panel—it is called the constituency. The proposal before us will appal voters and has been rejected, without exception, by every single democracy pressure group from 38 Degrees on the left, all the way over to the TaxPayers Alliance, and everything in between.
	The Bill could also destroy good MPs. Under the plans, just 10% of people can throw an MP out of office, although that MP could claw their way back into office if they got lucky in a by-election. Yes, the MP would have had to initiate the trigger, but history is full of hon. Members who have been suspended from this House or even jailed for noble protest. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is no longer in his place, but I believe that he has been suspended from the House 10 times. I apologise if I have got that wrong. Is it correct?

Stephen Pound: indicated assent.

Zac Goldsmith: It is correct, so hopefully the hon. Member for Bolsover will not be appalled that I have used that figure. Is he an hon. Member who merits recall? No, he is not. Would he have qualified for recall under these plans? Probably, yes.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend mentioned pressure groups from the left and the right of politics. I have not had a single e-mail from a constituent on this issue that has not been initiated by a pressure group template, so he should not overestimate the public’s interest in the Bill.

Zac Goldsmith: That is interesting. I have been bombarded. I even received a letter this morning that said, “Dear Zac Goldsmith, we very much hope that you will support Zac Goldsmith’s amendments.” I take my hon. Friend’s point, but as is shown by all the surveys on this issue, of which there have been a great many over the past few months, if this proposal is put to members of the public, it is something that they support.
	The amendments that my colleagues and I will table in due course are based on a Bill that was put together by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which was crowdsourced. Some 40,000 people, many of whom were members of 38 Degrees and other organisations, went through it line by line and fed in their comments. It has engaged a large number of people. I cannot think of another Bill that has been subjected to that level of crowdsourcing.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman made me think of some of the lines in the Bill when he mentioned the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). It states that
	“the period specified is a period of at least 21 sitting days”.
	It does not state that they must be 21 consecutive sitting days. It might help the Government if they go back and look at that.

Zac Goldsmith: That is a good point that I had not picked up on. The hon. Gentleman made the valid and reasonable point in an earlier intervention that there would be enormous pressure from the media, social media and members of the public for 21 days to become the norm, regardless of the offence.
	This shabby pretence of a reform needs to be profoundly amended. With the help of a considerable number of colleagues, I hope to do so in Committee. The goal will be to put voters in charge, but with enough checks and balances to prevent any possibility of abuse. We will attempt to remove the Government’s trigger and replace it with a system that allows voters to initiate the process. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), the protection will be in the threshold. It must be low enough to make recall possible, but high enough to ensure that it happens only when it absolutely should.
	Under our proposals, there would be three simple stages. If 5% of the local electorate signed a notice of intent to recall during a one-month period, the returning officer would announce a formal recall petition. The purpose of the 5% provision is simply to show the returning officer that there is an appetite for the formal petition process. It is the least formal part of the process and is designed to prevent the initiation of recall by a few angry cranks in the constituency, which every constituency has.

Richard Drax: At the point when the 5% figure was reached, the MP’s reputation would be damaged because the local newspaper would splash with, “MP to be recalled”, telephone calls would come in and the whole thing would spiral out of control, even though it could potentially be a vexatious thing. I wait to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, but I am not convinced about how he will sieve out non-vexatious calls from the 5% figure, which could ruin a Member’s reputation. That is such a small figure, particularly with modern media.

Zac Goldsmith: The purpose of the 5% figure is to take the temperature and to demonstrate to the returning officer that a sufficient number of people would like to have a recall petition. On average, it would be about 3,500 people. That is the least formal part of the process. According to our amendments, it would require a 200-word explanation of why the petition was being initiated. Of course, there will be times when people unfairly and unreasonably initiate the 5% process. However, if they get to 3,500 people, they will have demonstrated that there is enough of an appetite for a proper recall process.
	In answer to my hon. Friend’s point about sullying the reputation of the individual, recall is not part of the way in which we do politics in this country, but it is part of the way in which many other democracies work. If it became part of our culture, it would become a normal part of the argy-bargy of politics in this country and would be no source of shame. I suspect that every politician, at one point or another, would find themselves the subject of the 5% recall petition stage. The question is whether it would reach the 20% stage.
	If 20% of constituents signed a petition in a two-month period, not online, but in person in a verified, formal context, we would know that there was a problem. It would mean that 14,000 people had left their home and gone to the town hall or another specified venue to sign their name. What is the biggest petition that anyone in the Chamber has faced since they became an MP? Was it anywhere near 14,000? I doubt it. If it was anywhere near 14,000, had it been verified? I doubt it. Was it online? Could anyone have signed it? Was it timeless? Very likely. Was it geographically specific? I very much doubt it. To get to 14,000 people is a massive result. This would not be an online gimmick, but would require people to go to the town hall and vote in person.
	The most feedback that I have ever had as an MP—admittedly, I have only been an MP for four years—related to our NHS reforms. Nearly 1,000 people wrote to me. Many of them were template letters, but not all of them. Nearly 1,000 people wrote to me to express their disgust at the policies that I was supporting, but not one of them came to see me. Had they had the opportunity to vote for my recall online, I suspect that many of them would have done so, but how many of them would have left their home to go to the town hall and sign a petition? If 14,000 people had done so in a two-month period, I would have found it hard to put it down to the vexatious activities of the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party, the unions or anyone else.

Frank Dobson: Is the last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman’s speech in favour of recall or against it?

Zac Goldsmith: I am very sorry, but will the right hon. Gentleman repeat his question?

Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that even if we accepted his extreme version of recall, it would not work because not enough people would take part.

Zac Goldsmith: That is not at all what I am saying. I do not want to trivialise the concern of Members across the House that this tool might be abused. The threshold is therefore sufficiently high—it is possible to argue, perhaps rightly, that the threshold is too high—to make it impossible for the right to be abused by vexatious campaigns by minority groups, pressure groups and so on. It is simply inconceivable that that could happen.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend and I have had many civilised conversations about this matter over recent weeks. My concern centres on the 5% trigger. He knows full well that he and I could visit his local Sainsbury’s or Tesco on any matter and secure 3,750 signatures. My concern is over that initial threshold. Perhaps a better threshold would be 10% of those who voted at the previous election. For example, if 50,000 votes had been cast, the figure would be 5,000.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that 5% is about the right level, and that was the consensus of the committee of Back Benchers, which represented seven different parties—5% was the figure that people centred on. I think that 3,500 signatures is a
	high threshold in one month, but I accept that it is a lot easier than 20% of signatures in person in the town hall. However, I am open to attempts on Report to amend the amendments that I and colleagues will be tabling. A consensus that 5% is too low and that 10% will meet the approval of the House is for me an issue not of principle but of detail. If that is what it takes for the House to be comfortable with the proposals, I will politely go with the flow on that. The principle is what matters.

Andrew Bridgen: I have great sympathy with many of my hon. Friend’s arguments about recall, but were his plans to be accepted and a recall initiated, would the names and addresses of constituents who signed the petition be public knowledge, or would that be confidential? That will obviously be of great interest to many political figures.

Zac Goldsmith: The regulations we are using for those who sign the recall petition are exactly the same as those proposed by the Government. I do not want to mislead the House, but my belief is that names and addresses would not be published, and that this would be an anonymous process. The recall would need to be verified by the returning officer, but names would not be publicly available. The name of the person who initiates the 5% stage and the notice of intent to recall would be made public, however, as would the description. I think that is right for a number of reasons, including that there would be a person to whom the authorities could go if the 5% stage was fraudulent—if there were duplicate signatures or if children or people from other constituencies were asked to sign. It is much easier to attach legal responsibility to a named individual, as opposed to something entirely anonymous.
	In responding to interventions I think I have described the process—I hope so; I am slightly lost—and I was beginning to describe what genuine recall would look like: the 5% of constituents; then the 20% at the business end, the 14,000 people going to the town hall and signing. If that 20% is met, the bell would be rung and a recall referendum would be announced. That would be a simple yes or no, where a majority—not a vexatious minority—of an MP’s constituents would be required to boot them out in order to trigger the next stage, which is a by-election.

Andrew Lansley: As I understand it, my hon. Friend’s alternative approach would enable a recall petition to be triggered for any reason. Will he explain at what point somebody who might be the subject not of a political complaint, but of allegations relating to their personal affairs, their conduct in this House, or conduct that might be the subject of a criminal investigation, would be subject to a petition? How would he prevent a petition from being triggered in circumstances where no allegation had been proven against that person?

Zac Goldsmith: One supporter of the amendments that will be tabled is my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), whose circumstances match closely those just described. I hope that he speaks at some point in the debate—I do not see him here. He chose to support the amendments because he was reassured by provisions in them that once the judicial process begins, the recall process would be suspended. It would not be possible to seek to recall a Member once such a
	process had begun, until it had concluded. I think that is right, and there was an overwhelming consensus that that is right among the 40,000 people or so who responded to the survey. The measure would provide the protection that is required.
	To reach its logical conclusion, before getting to the by-election the process would require an absolute minimum of five and a half months. This process would not happen over a weekend, and five and a half months would also allow Members to make the case to their constituents in a way that they could not in a short period of time. That is another reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —he has had similar experiences that I do not need to rehearse because everybody knows about them—is very much a supporter of the Bill. He feels that the five-month process was far longer than he would have required to engage with his constituents and make the case. The same is true of two other Members of the House who have had difficulties in their lives and who began the debate very much in opposition to recall. They now both support the amendments because they feel that they will get a fairer trial from their constituents than they ever would from social media, the mainstream media, or from a standard committee of parliamentarians, susceptible and fragile as we all are to tremendous pressures from newspapers and social media. The thresholds and protections are there.

Bob Stewart: In support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said, I am worried about fairness. People sign underneath a petition of 200 words, but is it not fair for the MP to have a say at that point? How do we cover the fact that the MP is accused and does not have the right of response to those 5% of people?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Goldsmith, you have been speaking for 27 minutes and have been very generous with interventions. A lot of other Members are waiting to contribute, and they will not all be able to speak for nearly half an hour, as you have. Could you perhaps resist taking any more interventions, make the points you wish to make and conclude your speech?

Zac Goldsmith: Thank you for that helpful reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will wrap up my speech quickly, but I want to address briefly some of the concerns raised. I do not seek to demean or trivialise those concerns, and I recognise that there are genuine, heartfelt and principled concerns about recall, as it represents a big step. The Deputy Prime Minister has referred often in the House to kangaroo courts, but I emphasise that no Member could ever be recalled unless a majority of constituents choose for him or her to be recalled. That is the whole point of a recall referendum.
	We must keep a perspective. I am repeating myself, but to reach a point of recall, 20% of constituents—some 14,000 people—would have to make the journey in person to a town hall or another dedicated place within an eight-week period, and there would have to be a very good reason for that recall. Any hon. Member who disputes that should try to think back to the biggest petition they have faced, and to the issue that triggered
	the biggest e-mail flurry they have received. It will not have been anywhere close to 14,000 signatures—not of constituents, at least.

Richard Drax: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Zac Goldsmith: In one moment, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	In dozens of democracies around the world that use recall, it is hardly ever used. In the US, where recall has existed for 100 years—I have already made this point—it has been used only 40 times, and only 20 times successfully. California is the most active recall state in the United States. Only one governor in 100 years has ever been recalled, and there is not a single example of a successful vexatious recall campaign.
	I know that other hon. Members worry that recall might somehow turn us into delegates and no longer representatives—a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—but that is not realistic. Voters care about a wide range of issues, and it is rare for recall to be motivated only by one issue. People might disapprove of a Member’s position on one issue, but support them on a range of other issues. It is rare for one issue to be a deal breaker, and the history of recalls shows that that is very rare—I cannot think of an example of one policy issue being the cause and effect of a successful recall.

Kevan Jones: Gun control.

Zac Goldsmith: There are no examples of that. There are examples of attempted recall on the back of gun control, but not a successful one. It is probably true, however, that where recall is possible MPs will think twice about making undeliverable pledges, which is not a bad thing. It is also likely that where pledges have to be broken, MPs would feel obliged to engage extensively with constituents to explain why that was necessary, and that is also a good thing.
	Hundreds of thousands of constituents around the country have been sent the same template letter from Liberal Democrat Members, and been told that this measure will cost too much. I saw one of those letters a couple of days ago. Constituents have been told:
	“Just one real Recall petition per constituency per Parliament could cost the taxpayer £100 million.”
	That figure is completely bonkers. It inflates the Government’s own impact assessment by 300%, and assumes that each Member of this place will face the full recall—not just the 5%—at least once in every Parliament. If 650 Members of this place face recall in one Parliament, the cost is the very least of our problems.
	Of course there are arguments against recall, but at their core those are arguments against democracy itself and against all elections. If those arguments prevail, I believe that we will have lost a golden opportunity, not just for voters but for us as Members of this great place. Recall would empower people to hold their MPs to account, and that ubiquitous moan that we have all heard—“You’re all the same; there’s no point voting and nothing will ever change”—would no longer make any sense. The mere existence of recall would give each of us an added, implied continuous mandate, and embolden us as a Parliament. I do not say that it would fix our democracy, but it would be a very big start.

Chris Bryant: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I just want to pick up on one point. He said that votes for women were inevitable. I disagree. I of course passionately support women having the vote and it seems inevitable to us today, but it took a first world war and millions of people slaughtered across the continent for the political class in this country to change its mind on women’s votes. Nearly every political reform that has happened in this country that has been worth having has had to be fought for and has never been inevitable.
	The first Reform Bill, when it came through the Commons in 1830, was carried by a single vote. Mrs Thatcher only became Prime Minister because of a single vote in the no confidence vote in 1979. Habeas corpus, when it was put on the statute book in 1679, was carried by two votes in the House of Lords because a very fat peer was counted as 10 votes—it should never have passed. If one believes in parliamentary reform, one has to campaign for it and to fight for it. Nothing is ever inevitable. I know the hon. Gentleman has been fighting and that is why I do not think he should undermine his cause.

Mark Field: There was a general election in May 1979. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention, but that was not in this place; it was outside among 60 million Britons.

Chris Bryant: If it had not been for the vote of no confidence and the nationalists joining with the Conservatives in March 1979, there would not have been that early general election.
	If I am really honest, there is part of me that does not want to have anything at all to do with recall, because part of me thinks we should have confidence in the parliamentary process and just have shorter Parliaments. Five years for a fixed-term Parliament is far too long: it should be four years. However, we have got to where we are because our parliamentary system is broken. It is bust in important ways that matter to the public. We are held in utter contempt as a class, if not as individuals. I recognise what the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said. All of us know that the vast majority of politicians—more than the vast majority; virtually every single politician I know—have honourable intentions and ambitions only for what is best for their country and want to change the world according to their lights for good. The truth, however, is that that is not what our voters think. Our voters have come to a completely different conclusion. Maybe that is because, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, we have sometimes made ludicrous promises that we knew, even when we made them, we were not going to be able to deliver. The classic example is tuition fees. I could say that to the Liberal Democrats, but they could equally say that to Labour Members when we first introduced tuition fees.
	It may be that familiarity in the past century has bred contempt. One hundred years ago, people did not know what their Member of Parliament looked like. Many MPs never lived in their constituency and hardly ever
	visited. When Edmund Burke was MP for Bristol he visited it twice—no wonder they did not vote for him. He also made some profoundly arrogant remarks on the role of a politician and a Member of Parliament. We think that this is all terribly unfair, but the end result is that voter turnout is falling, and falling in different kinds of elections. Turnout is at its worst for police and crime commissioner elections. I think it was always inevitable that they would have a particularly low turnout. Incidentally, should there not be recall for them?
	After the second world war, in 1950, the turnout in the general election was 83.9%. At the last general election turnout was 65%, even when we leave out the millions who have not even bothered to register. In one seat, Manchester Central, the turnout was just 44.3%. If that is not the electorate voting on whether our system is bust, what is?

Conor Burns: The hon. Gentleman mentions Edmund Burke. In Burke’s famous address to his electors in Bristol he said that Members of Parliament should sacrifice their interests in favour of their constituents, but he also said that Members of Parliament owe their constituents their judgment and that if they betray their judgment to their constituents’ opinion they are betraying, not serving, them. Take the recent example of same-sex marriage. My concerns is that I was lobbied vigorously by constituents to oppose it and I voted for it. What protection would there be in the recall mechanism for a Member of Parliament who takes a conscious decision to vote against public opinion?

Chris Bryant: I will come on to whether there should be a recall in a situation in which MPs disagree with their constituents. It is often said of my constituents—I do not know whether it is true, but it is often said by the commentariat—that they would all vote in favour of hanging. I am passionately opposed to hanging. If there were recalls solely on that matter, however, I think the voters would none the less choose to re-elect me because I was prepared to say what I believe and stand for. I think voters are actually far wiser in that respect than even Burke would suggest. He also said:
	“To be a good Member of Parliament is, let me tell you, no easy task.”
	I think we would all agree with that.
	We have to bear in mind that not a single one of us in this House receives the votes of more than 50% of the total electorate, including those who choose not to vote—not a single one of us. There was only one British seat in the 2001 election where a Member got more than 40% of the total electorate, including those who did not vote. In that seat, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit. The constituency was the Rhondda. Even in the Rhondda, the figure is only a smidgeon above 40%. We must have a degree of humility in how we approach our electorate. Sometimes I think it feels to our voters that we are not full of humility.

Richard Drax: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and his use of statistics. I would just like to pick up on one point. The number of people voting in elections has dropped not, I believe, because of the misconduct of individual MPs, but because the identities of the three main parties have merged. What I am getting on the doorstep is that they are fed up with
	politicians not standing up for what they believe in. That does not have anything to do with misconduct. They are two entirely separate matters.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman must have hacked into my computer, because he has basically said what I am about to say in my next couple of paragraphs. That is not an allegation of misconduct, by the way. [Laughter.] I do not think the Standards and Privileges Committee needs to address it.
	Edmund Burke has been mentioned a lot. When he campaigned against corruption in Parliament, he complained that there were too many people in the pocket of the Crown. He came to the conclusion that there were 140 Members of the Commons who, because they had a pension, a well-paid salary post in government or had been given some kind of perk or sinecure, were in the pocket of the Crown, and he complained about those 140 MPs. Today, we have 95 paid Government Ministers, 43 Conservative Parliamentary Private Secretaries, five Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Private Secretaries and seven Conservative members of the No. 10 policy board, to say nothing of those on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches who want to have those jobs.
	My complaint is that there are now more than 150 MPs in the direct employ of the Government who have no choice in how they are going to vote. If we take all the others into account, more than half the Members in this House have their voting determined entirely for them by two people: the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Ironically, France has just 35 Ministers, none of whom are in their Parliament. Germany has just 17 Cabinet Ministers and two under-Ministers in each Department—50 in total. The UK therefore has more Government Ministers than France and Germany put together. In essence this House, which should be the cockpit of political debate expressed without any fear or favour, where the nation’s grievances are aired and solutions found in what should be a free and fair legislature, is frankly today nothing more than a gene pool for Government. Our primary role is no longer to scrutinise the Government or hold them to account; the majority of Members think that our primary role is to staff or sustain the Government. In the end, that is a problem. It is why we have all the planted questions and obsequious speeches and why votes we pass—on Magnitsky or Palestine—with massive majorities are completely and utterly ignored by the Government. It is why we still have a completely and utterly unreformed House of Lords where patronage remains vital.
	It would be all right if the edifice of our present government system was built on a strong foundation of mass-membership parties, but it is not. If we put all the political parties’ members together into one great big rowing lump, we would not get to 500,000 people. It is sometimes compared with the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the National Trust. The numbers are feeble, yet that is what it all depends on. There are constituency associations on both sides of the House that have fewer than 200 or even 100 members. I do not like the term “safe seats”; there are seats that have been reliably electing the same kind of MP for decades and where the new MP will be selected by perhaps 50, 60, 70 or 100 people. People introduced the Reform Act in the 1830s complaining
	about constituencies where only 100 people could elect the MP, and it is no different today, which is why constituency parties are finding it difficult to get more candidates to present themselves, even in safe seats. On both sides of the House, constituency parties are selecting safe-seat candidates from a short list of two or even one.
	Therefore, I would of course argue that the parliamentary system is bust. In 1951, 1955 and 1959, the two main political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, received more than 90% of the vote, but now they get barely 65%, and in the European elections this year they got 49.3%. Yet we have a “winner takes all” parliamentary system in which the winner gets to appoint as many peers as they want and decide the whole Government and all business; only the Government get to table motions laying a charge on the taxpayer or to advance legislation as a priority at the beginning of the day, and so on.
	For a long time, we had a system that allowed a chink of democracy: we had ministerial by-elections. For centuries, if someone was appointed a Minister, they had to face a by-election in their constituency, because they had to go back to their voters and say, “Is it all right for me to join the Government?” I would argue that that is a perfectly legitimate system, but of course people did not like it. In 1908, when he lost his ministerial by-election, Winston Churchill, who had a terrible habit of losing elections, said:
	“It is an awful hindrance to anyone in my position to be always forced to fight for his life and always having to make his opinions on national politics to conform to local exigencies”.
	Some of our objections to recall are basically that self-same arrogant attitude towards the electorate. It is an awful hindrance, isn’t it, to let the voters get in our way?
	The key issue in the Bill is the threshold. In essence, it places the initial decision in the hands of MPs or the courts. The danger is that the courts would decide not to imprison an MP because it would of necessity start the recall process, so MPs would not be treated the same as others before the law. Furthermore, if we put the decision in the hands of a Committee of MPs, regardless of how many members of the public—it does not matter whether they are genuine or non-genuine members of the public—also sit on it, it just will not wash with the public.
	There was an extraordinary moment in 1911 when Asquith was Prime Minister. There had been a big battle between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the “people’s Budget”, which introduced national insurance and the rest of it. Asquith was at the Dispatch Box and blind drunk. He was the Prime Minister; it was the most important piece of legislation in his life; and he was blind drunk, and we only know about it because Winston Churchill and Lloyd George both wrote home to their wives to tell them that he was blind drunk and had to be carried out of the debate—you cannot tell from Hansard. Churchill made the interesting point that it was only thanks to the freemasonry of the House of Commons that the public would never know about it. That is the danger. The public think we are engaged in a freemasonic activity by protecting one another. They think we protected one another in the expenses scandal and that we look after one another even across the party divide, and that is why I do not think the initial threshold—of allowing the decision to be made by Members—will be good enough.

Lady Hermon: I must take the hon. Gentleman back a few minutes in his speech. I am sure I am not alone in feeling deeply offended at his reference to the judiciary. The judiciary, of whose independence I am enormously proud, would not be swayed by the fact that someone is an MP—quite the opposite; they might be swayed to be more severe. I am sure he would like to put on the record his confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Chris Bryant: I am very fond of the hon. Lady, but I think she has deliberately misunderstood what I was saying. Judges regularly say in their summing up that they are taking into consideration the fact that because the person is a Member of Parliament they would lose their job as well if they were to be given a custodial sentence of more than a year. It is a matter of fact that these matters are taken into consideration.
	There is another problem with the Bill. Having set a very high threshold—that the courts or MPs get to decide whether somebody is subject to the recall process—it then sets the very low threshold of 10% for throwing someone out. As I said, no Member has achieved election to this House by 50% of the total electorate, so the idea that it would be difficult to find 10% to force them out of their seat, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
	If those two thresholds are wrong, what is the right one? Should we just leave it to the public, which in essence is what we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park? As many Members have said, there is a danger that the extremely wealthy could pervert the process; they could spend lots of money in individual constituencies—or perhaps 10, 20 or 30 at a time—and subvert the proper democratic process. Arguably, big money is already doing that in the British system. We need to look again at how people spend money and at the rules governing not just general elections, but by-elections, because the last thing I want is an American-style democracy where only the rich can ever get elected.
	Of course there is a danger of timid MPs, but there is that danger today, and the honest truth is: I would trust the public. I say this for a simple reason. In 2003, I got into a bit of trouble with the electorate, The Mail on Sunday and a whole load of journalists after the paper revealed that I had been using a gay dating website called Gaydar, and there were pictures and so on. The story was not quite as it was presented in some of the newspapers, but be that as it may—

David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will once I have finished my point.
	One Mail journalist told me they were taking bets in the office on when I would commit suicide. The campaign was malevolent, but it still would have been perfectly legitimate for some of my constituents to say, “Let’s start recall.” People could legitimately have asked about my conduct. However, I also have absolute confidence in the electorate and the people of the Rhondda, and in the people of this country for that matter. They might have got 500, 1,000 or 1,500 to sign the recall, but The Mail on Sunday did its own opinion poll and found that the vast majority of the people in this country did not think I had done anything wrong or that I should resign. Having gone through that hell in November 2003, I say that it is perfectly legitimate, and the wise
	thing for us to do, to leave it to the public, as long as we make sure that the threshold is decent enough that it is not just about people being vexatious and as long as big money cannot determine the outcome. In the end—

Jackie Doyle-Price: rose—

Chris Bryant: This is my last sentence, and I am sure that people have heard quite enough from me—

David Davis: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, I did promise to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

David Davis: At the risk of repeating the hon. Gentleman’s point, I remember that we discussed that issue at the time. Surely the outcome of his whole argument is that the public are wiser than we give them credit for. They were wiser about his private life, they are wiser about the influence of big money and they are wiser about our politics. There are many Labour members in my constituency who vote against me religiously but would never vote for a recall, because they think that I am doing my job. Is that not what we end up depending on?

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The proof of that is that after those events, in the 2005 election, I increased my majority. I can only assume that that proves that it pays to advertise.
	My argument is simple, really. Yes, let us have recall; it is an important next stage in the democratic process. We have to open up that little sliver of democracy in the political process, because the leviathan is groaning. We need to change, but we need to ensure that we sort out the financial thing, that this cannot be done vexatiously and that we have a high enough threshold.

Charles Walker: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have finished.

Charles Walker: I put in to speak in this debate with righteous indignation because I thought I was going to be entertained to a ghastly speech from the Deputy Prime Minister, who tries to make himself look big by making this place look small and who persists in talking about broken politics. Unfortunately, that task fell to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who talked about our broken Parliament. We must not conflate our political parties with Parliament. Our political parties may come and go, but hopefully Parliament will remain a constant.
	I see this as an opportunity to talk about what I still respect, admire and revere about this place. We need champions of Parliament, and I must say that the thing that still excites me most about this place and what it offers our constituents is accountability. Is it not extraordinary? We take it for granted that a member of the public can write to me, their Member of Parliament, because they are concerned about a policy—an education policy, or a transport policy, for example—and I will take that concern up and write to the Minister. And
	here it is: we get a response from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Education or, on occasion, the Prime Minister. We diminish that in this place, but it is truly remarkable. It is not replicated in many parts of Europe and it is scarce around the world.
	Let us be careful before we use the Bill as an opportunity to attack this Parliament. Parliament is not broken. I have seen many colleagues in this place achieve remarkable things, not just for their constituents but for the nation at large, and I have the utmost respect for them and the power this place provides them with to do those wonderful things.

Conor Burns: I share my hon. Friend’s reverence and respect for the institution of Parliament, and I very much agree with the points he is making. However, does he agree that one reason why this place has fallen into some disrepute is that we have given so many powers away? In exercising our constituency responsibilities, we are finding that powers have been given to the European Union and unelected quangos. This place needs to take more power back.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Institutions are only as powerful as the trust that people have in them, and I am concerned when our sovereign Parliament is overruled by supranational bodies, as that undermines faith in the institution. It is the same with our courts. My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point.
	Let me also touch on a couple of other things that have been said today. We are often told that we are out of touch by our constituents, but in reality that is code for, “You disagree with my point of view.” I understand that, but I am not out of touch with my constituents. They might not like me and they might not like what I stand for, but every morning I travel in from my constituency and every evening I go back. I am pleased to meet my constituents on the platform and, in the main, they pretend to be pleased to meet me. I spend numerous weekends out and about in my community, not just having surgeries but going to the shops—I am an ordinary Member of Parliament. Let us take all of this with a pinch of salt and let us not self-flagellate constantly about our standing and the standing of Parliament.
	I shall not detain the House much longer, but let me just make a point that I touched on in an intervention. In 2010, the Bill that became the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was introduced in this place. I did not support it and, in reality, it made it much more difficult for us as Members of Parliament to recall the Government. I found that extraordinary, and I find it even more extraordinary now that a recall Bill is being promoted by those on the Front Bench that will, in essence, further entrench the power of the Executive as opposed to the interests of Back Benchers.
	I have some concerns. I accept that the Minister is here with good intentions, but there are genuine concerns about the Government’s proposals, as there are about the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I hope that we can reach a solution that carries the confidence of this House and of our constituents. Let us not forget that we all serve in a wonderful Parliament and one that many would like to replicate around the world.

Douglas Carswell: I feel so strongly about recall that I recalled myself. All three established parties pretended that they were in favour of recall, too, and went into the last general election offering voters a right of recall, but four and a half years on that has not happened. They have found time to debate a referendum on the alternative vote system and to talk at length about non-existent Lords reform. We have debated every subject imaginable under the sun, but somehow we have failed to pass legislation to make MPs meaningfully accountable to voters. And we wonder why there is such distrust in politics.
	Worse, the coalition now brings to this House measures so deeply flawed that they are unworthy of the name recall. Let us be clear about what is being proposed. If an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for 21 days or more, a petition process is triggered. Should 10% of local people sign it, the MP ceases to be a Member of this House and there is a by-election. Therein lies the first and most fundamental flaw in the Bill: it is a recall Bill without a recall mechanism. As those on the coalition Front Bench well know, recall mechanisms involve a local referendum that asks whether the sitting MP should be recalled—yes, or no. It should be a binary choice, not a by-election. If 50% plus one agree, there should a by-election, but it is up to local people to decide whether they should be—not 10% of local people, but a majority of local people. Where in the legislation is that mechanism? The coalition has forgotten to include a recall mechanism in the recall Bill.
	Worse than being a recall Bill without recall, the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect to that which is intended. It is a proposal that is supposed to make MPs more accountable to voters that leaves the trigger firmly in the hands of Westminster grandees. A measure designed to make MPs answer outwards to the electorate ends up strengthening the power of Whips. As the Bill is drafted, MPs and Whips, not voters, will sit in judgment on errant MPs. It is an implausible Bill from an implausible Front Bench with an implausible record on political reform.

Mike Thornton: If there was a way to put more power back in the hands of the electorate to decide whether an MP should be recalled, although not necessarily without any grounds whatsoever, would the hon. Gentleman feel that that was a better way of proceeding?

Douglas Carswell: I certainly would. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is going to table some excellent amendments, which I will do everything I can to support. That will ensure that we have a recall Bill worthy of the name and of the promise made to voters.
	The Deputy Prime Minister has expressed his concern that real recall might leave MPs subject to partisan pressure and sectional interests, yet by leaving it to Westminster insiders to decide who gets to face a by-election, MPs are going to be vulnerable to precisely the sectional interests from which they most need protection—the party Whips.
	I would like hon. Members to cast their minds back to the previous Member who represented Norwich North—Dr Ian Gibson. I mean no disrespect to the current MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich
	North (Chloe Smith), when I say that I have known Ian Gibson for over 20 years and I know what a good and decent man he is. More to the point, I know that his constituents in Norwich, a city I know well, knew what a good and decent man he is, yet he was thrown to the wolves by the Whips. At the height of the expenses scandal, after a couple of awkward headlines, he was judged by his party Whips to be guilty. Perhaps his real guilt lay in the fact that he failed to sign someone’s nomination papers; I do not know. However, had there been a proper recall mechanism in place, I am absolutely certain that Ian Gibson would have been exonerated by those who knew him best—Norwich voters. As MPs, we should have nothing to fear from recall.

Richard Drax: I do not want to get personal about other Members of Parliament, as I do not think it appropriate that we should in this place. On the hon. Gentleman’s very point, as I said earlier, if someone commits an offence, such as those during the expenses scandal, it is a matter of honour for the individuals in this House. An hon. Member should resign their seat if such an offence is committed. There is no need for laws, recalls or anything else to do the job for us.

Douglas Carswell: The point I was illustrating is that MPs often look at recall, but recoil from it because they fear it will somehow make them vulnerable. I would argue that MPs who do their job properly, stick to their promises and do their best by their constituents will find that their hand is strengthened by recall. It should in fact give them greater confidence to do their job in the knowledge that, if there is a question mark over whether they stay here, those who trust them the most will make the final decision.
	There has been some suggestion that real recall would lead to vexatious attempts to remove MPs. Let us think about that for a second. This country has had a recall vote—we do not call it that, but that is what it was. In 1997, the Liberal Democrats won the Winchester seat at the election. The Conservatives claimed that the Lib Dems had done so by error and that they had been cheated of victory because they had lost by a mere two votes, and that that was somehow wrong. They got a judicially sanctioned recall, but it was seen by local people for what it was—a vexatious attempt by bad losers to overturn the democratic will of the people. What happened? Having initially lost by two, the Conservatives went on to lose by more than 20,000. I thus emphasise that we have nothing to fear from vexatious attempts at recall.

Henry Bellingham: I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments over a long time. In many ways, he talks a great deal of sense. Does he agree, however, that we have to draw a distinction between failure of conduct and professional judgment. For example, I have been running a campaign on incinerators in my constituency. Some 65,000 constituents voted no. I was actually on their side, but had I been against them, their recourse would have been to kick me out at the next election. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if I had gone against 65,000 people in my constituency, I would have been vulnerable to a recall Bill that is cast too widely?

Douglas Carswell: I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend should recoil from the idea that voters might vote against Members on policy grounds. That is the whole point of us, is it not? Surely it is entirely legitimate for people to vote politicians out of office if they do not reflect their policy priorities. This idea that we can somehow separate the two—so that voters can pass judgment on us for our conduct but not our policy priorities—is absurd and ridiculous. Charles I would have agreed with my hon. Friend. I think it is a false distinction, which does not give the voters the respect they deserve.
	Let us ponder for a second something that we are used to in this country—the idea of trial by jury. We trust 12 lay people to pass a judgment and to determine the guilt or otherwise of someone accused of wrongdoing. We trust those jurors to decide not whether they agree with the law that was allegedly broken, but whether the defendant has broken the law. We trust them to exercise good judgment. If we have a right of recall, I think we can trust that jury of 70,000 or 80,000 people to exercise good judgment, too.

Nigel Evans: Speaking as someone who recently faced a jury, may I say how grateful I was for their independence of mind and the verdict they gave? Like the hon. Gentleman, I have no fear of the electorate. Although I will support the Bill, I want to see it go into Committee and to find ways to make it far more liberal so that the electors get the opportunity, if they so wish, to decide to remove a Member of Parliament at some time. The important point is to get this Bill through tonight, get it into Committee and see what improvements can be made. I understand that the Prime Minister says that he believes this legislation can be improved.

Douglas Carswell: I am grateful for that powerful point. If I thought that this measure would allow lynch mob justice, I would be against it, but I trust the judgment of the people in aggregate. Just as we can trust a jury to decide and sometimes exercise perhaps more common sense than public prosecutors, so we can trust the electorate in aggregate to make decisions about the conduct of Members. If we proceed with this, I think we will discover that the voters are a pretty liberal bunch and a pretty forgiving bunch. I generally think that if we trust remote, unaccountable officials and grandees in Westminster, we are likely to get worse decisions than if we trusted the voters in aggregate. If we can improve the proposals by widening the body of people who decide, so much the better.

Mike Thornton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance. He makes a good point about jurors, but before something gets to the jury, it has to be established whether there is a prima facie case to answer. The jury is thus deciding on a case that has already had some legs to go before the judge and jury in the first place. Following the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning to a logical conclusion, perhaps there should be some way of judging a case before it came before the public through the recall petition.

Douglas Carswell: That strengthens my point considerably. Until the 1930s, this country had grand juries to determine whether there was a prima facie case. If that had happened, we would not have had the
	number of cases being brought to court when common sense would have dictated that they should never have been brought to court. If we have grand juries and trust the people, we get better decisions in the courts. If we trust a wider body of people to determine whether or not an MP should remain, we get better judgments and more effective recall proposals. Wherever more people are included in a decision-making process, we generally get better decisions.

Mark Durkan: Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point about grand juries, does he accept that the last group of people who should act as a grand jury in relation to recall would be any Committee of this House?

Douglas Carswell: I absolutely agree. There are many good and decent Members who would never be given as fair a hearing by a Committee of grandees—people who spend their careers chasing the Whips’ baubles—as they would if they trusted the views of the voters. After all, it is the voters who know us best. If the majority of our constituents decide in a vote that, frankly, they want us recalled, there is no shame in that. We are clearly in the wrong job; we should go and do something else. The voters would be better off if we did; we would be better off and so would democracy.

Zac Goldsmith: It is worth pointing out the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee has already said on the record that he does not want this extra duty of this extra ballot. He recognises, as does everyone else, that if we want to exert pressure and to influence an outcome, it is much easier to do so with a fallible group of 10 people than it is with 70,000 constituents.

Douglas Carswell: Absolutely. I would ask people again to apply the Ian Gibson test. If the Standards and Privileges Committee had been left to make the key decision in those heated and fevered moments during the MPs’ expenses scandal, would it not have been under intense media pressure to make the wrong choice by that good and decent Member of Parliament? I think it would have been. It is wrong for the Standards and Privileges Committee to have this role. It is right, if we want more lay members to be involved, for us not to seek to increase the number of lay members on the Standards and Privileges Committee, but to trust the voters. It puzzles me that people still struggle with the idea that the voters should decide whether or not to trigger the process, for they are the ultimate jury.
	I shall support the Bill this evening. I shall do so because I am confident that it can be amended and made meaningful, and confident that many of the amendments that will be tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be successful. Unless that happens, this recall measure will remain a sham, a fix, a pretence of change so that Westminster can stay the same. Proper recall will end safe seat syndrome, which is what has really hamstrung our democracy. In four of the past five elections, fewer than one in 10 seats have changed hands. Even at the time of the 1997 great Labour landslide, only three in 10 changed hands. In other words, seven out of 10 seats are safe seats. There is almost a zero chance of those Members losing their seats unless they fall foul of the Whips. They are fiefdoms.
	That means that MPs answer to other MPs. The great destructive mechanism in our democracy, the Whips Office, is all-powerful.

Charles Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that recall would end safe seat syndrome. How will it do that?

Douglas Carswell: At present, the career trajectories of MPs in safe seats are determined by how obsequious they are to Ministers, and on whether or not the Whips think highly of them and give them promotion. If a Member is vulnerable to a recall election—if he is vulnerable to the views of the voters—he may start to face outward to the voters. Even if he is in a safe seat, he will know that he can lose his position if he breaks his promises and does not do what he said he was going to do. Recall would mean that instead of facing inward and chasing favour with the Whips, MPs would become outward-facing, and I think that that would revive and reinvigorate our democracy.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the ultimate battering ram against “safe seat syndrome”, as it has been described this afternoon, not a recall Bill but the single transferable vote system that we have seen in operation in, for instance, the Republic of Ireland?

Douglas Carswell: I would rather not get into the subject of electoral reform, although my views on it were not generally mainstream in my old party, and I am open to ideas and suggestions. Recall would be a key part of reviving our democracy.

Mark Field: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unkind about “safe seat syndrome”, which has been the focus of much of his attention. My own seat —the seat that I currently occupy—has been Conservative for an unbroken period since 1868. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and, perhaps rather more importantly, my 73,000 constituents—that I work extremely hard. I treat my seat like a marginal, and I think that the same applies to many MPs. It is an attitude of mind. It may be entirely irrational, given all the hard work that must be done in the run-up to an election, but I think that many MPs, whether or not they have safe seats, take a very diligent approach to their constituency work.

Douglas Carswell: My hon. Friend has made my point for me, rather eloquently. There are very good and decent people who come into Parliament with good and honourable intentions, but why is it so often the case that those who enter this place with good and honourable intentions do not—in the public’s eyes, at any rate—do what it was hoped that they would do? I submit that it is because they end up facing inward. They come here, and then they face what other MPs in Westminster determine should be their priorities. That is the problem. That explains why so many good and decent people come here and end up not achieving what their constituents hoped for.
	I think that, by giving voters the power to sack MPs, recall will break open cartel politics. I am somewhat bemused when some Members seem appalled at the very notion that the public might actually vote out of office an MP with whom they disagreed over policy—shock, horror. Surely that is the whole point of politics.
	The Minister attacked the very idea of a politically motivated recall, but surely “politically motivated” is what we are supposed to be in this Chamber. I thought that that was the essence of politics.
	I look forward to voting for the Bill, and to supporting the amendments that will make it meaningful.

David Davis: I think that 10 years ago I would have opposed the Bill, because I would have taken the conventional view that has been expressed by one or two Government Members today. The last decade, however, has led me to believe that the chasm that has grown between the political classes and the ordinary voters—the population of the country—has become too wide. Some of that has, of course, been due to the expenses crisis, but it is by no means either the only or the first reason. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out, the current trend has been ongoing for a long time, but I believe that it is now approaching a crisis point.
	I have therefore concluded that a recall Bill is necessary, and, like the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), I shall vote for this Bill, although I must add that I do not view it as a recall Bill. If anything, it is a parliamentary expulsion Bill, because it makes it easy for the establishment of the House to expel someone from the House. Let us imagine the circumstances. A Member is found wanting by his peers in the Standards and Privileges Committee—no doubt amid a vast hue and cry from a number of tabloid and red-top newspapers—and his constituents are then told “If 10% of you vote in the referendum, this man will go.” No matter that 90% of them might want him to stay; in those torrid circumstances, only 10% need to vote, and he will be expelled. I do not think that anyone who was criticised and set up in that way would survive the process, or would be reselected by his party thereafter. He might stand on his own account like Dick Taverne, like the hon. Member for Clacton, or indeed like me, but he would not survive the normal political process. This is, as I have said, a mechanism for political expulsion.
	I might find that tolerable if our mechanisms in the House met any sort of judicial test, but, having been here for some 25 years, I suggest Members conduct an experiment. I say this with no ill reflection on the people who serve on and chair the Standards and Privileges Committee. I suggest that Members make a list of the names of all who have been ruled against by the Committee, separate them into two columns consisting of Front Benchers and Back Benchers—I do not suggest that the two columns should consist of those who are within the gilded circle and those who are the mavericks—and compare the treatments of people who have committed the same crime. They will then find two classes of justice. We do not deliver justice in this House; we deliver an opinion of the establishment of the House, and that is why the public are not wrong to view our systems as intolerable.
	Let me give one example. I shall not give the examples of those who have been let off, because that might be mean in the circumstances, but I will give an example of someone who, in my view, was very badly treated. It was
	someone who was no friend of mine and, indeed, no friend of almost anyone in the House: Ken Livingstone. About a decade ago, he received income from a series of speaking engagements. He went to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests and asked how he should declare that income, and he then declared it in the way the Registrar recommended. Later, someone found out how much money he had made. I think that it was more than £100,000, but in any case it was a lot of money. He was then suddenly hauled before the Standards and Privileges Committee, and forced to make an apology here in the Chamber. Why? He was an outsider. He was a maverick. He had no friends in the House, or at least no friends in the parties in the House. His was not the only case of that kind—I could have picked a number of others—but that was not justice, it was not democracy, and it would not improve this House to formalise such a process by means of the mechanism with which the Minister has presented us today.
	Such a system could be made to work only if we replaced the standards and privileges process with a judicial process. I do not think that the House really wants to introduce the law into its mechanisms, but if it wants to adopt a test it will have to be a judicial test. I suspect that, if I were ever in front of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I would be looking for a judicial remedy immediately. So this is not a recall Bill as it stands; it is a parliamentary expulsion Bill, and we should understand that.
	I support the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has been a principled campaigner for these reforms for some time. I shall not take up much more of the House’s time, but I want to remind hon. Members of the differences involved. The Government’s proposal would take either a criminal mechanism or the House’s judgment and turn it into a one-off, 10% referendum. Then it would be over. My hon. Friend’s proposal would have a 5% first threshold to start the process. That would trigger the timetable, and a 20% threshold would follow. In my constituency, that would equate to just short of 15,000 voters. I have never seen a campaign in my constituency get 15,000 voters to go out voluntarily and put their name on a petition.

Richard Drax: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. If, as a result of such a referendum, a political scalp were gained and a seat lost, does my right hon. Friend agree that supporters of an opposing party would get out and vote, as they would at a general election? I accept that the numbers would be down, but there could still be significant numbers voting. The numbers that he is talking about would certainly be possible if a seat could be gained in that way.

David Davis: This point has been made a number of times, particularly by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)but also by others. My hon. Friend is presuming that his constituents would vote on the basis of a simple political judgment, according to whether they wanted a Labour Government, a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or even a UKIP Government, but I do not believe that our constituents behave like that. I believe that they behave in a moral way and make judgments about us. I have discussed this matter with my constituents. Many of those who have never voted for me in my 20-odd years in the constituency would
	not vote to remove me on that basis. They would not make such a judgment on a political basis. They would recognise that this was a quasi-judicial judgment. That is why we are better off trusting the public than trusting the hierarchy in this House.

Mike Thornton: Much of what the right hon. Gentleman says about our constituents is true. However, he is perhaps slightly out of date in regard to the collecting of signatures. We have seen 38 Degrees inundating us with e-mails, and with modern technology it would not be as difficult as it used to be to get8 a great number of signatures.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made. This would involve not an electronic collection but a physical collection of votes. People would have to get out and go down to their town hall or their polling station. I think we have nominated four locations for any given constituency. We thought about this very point; indeed, it is one of the things we crowd-tested with 40,000 people. They recognised, as did members of 38 Degrees, that an electronic vote would be the wrong way to carry out this process. It has to be a process in which people exercise a moral judgment and overcome a physical hurdle by going down to one of those locations and doing something about it. Again, this shows that we are better off trusting our own constituents.
	There was much argument in Committee about the figure of 20%. Some people talked about 25%; others talked about less. The simple truth is that 20% is pretty much the norm internationally. Most, if not all, other countries exercising this mechanism do not experience many vexatious actions. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)made legitimate points about the role of big money in this exercise, but only a Californian governor has been replaced throughout the century in which this mechanism has been in place in America, despite the fact that many people would have been vehemently opposed by big corporate interests. In any event, we can deal with that through the regulations and laws that will surround this Bill when we make it an Act of Parliament.
	This is an incredibly important Bill, but the Government have got it quite materially wrong. This is one of those rare occasions on which it is for the House of Commons to make a judgment that will decide our own future.

Angus MacNeil: Mention has been made today of the disengagement with politics in the wider context, but it might be good news for the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that politics in Scotland is now going through a veritable purple patch—a renaissance, even—and that we have perhaps the most engaged and politically literate electorate in the whole of Europe.

Charles Walker: Am I right in thinking that the even the Conservative party is having a renaissance in Scotland?

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman might be on to something, but I think that it might have to be called a relative renaissance. Polls have shown that the Conservative
	party’s figures have not increased much, if at all, in Scotland, although they are above those of the Labour party. It is not really much of a renaissance at all. However, I do not want to be distracted by the political ill weather for Labour and the Conservatives north of the border, because that is not the matter before the House this afternoon.
	I hope that there is much agreement on the idea of a recall Bill, but the disagreement lies in whether we should have an open recall Bill or the more prescribed recall Bill that the Government propose.
	I want to say quite a bit about the Government’s attitude and approach to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was absolutely right to say that among the problems with the Government’s Bill are its reliance on the Standards and Privileges Committee and the justice of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had looked into that matter, and it did not surprise me that there was such a justice differential between those inside the gilded circle and those outwith it.
	The proposal for a 10% threshold is dangerous. A safer mechanism for recall would involve a 5% threshold, followed by 20% and then a simple majority in a referendum. This process should be an extension of democracy and, if we get to that point, there should be a secret ballot—or an Australian ballot, as it was originally called. The prescribed route also carries the danger that it mentions trigger conditions, such as a jailing. Mentioning the conditions would make a recall more likely because it would light up the minds of those in journalistic circles, who would start to crank up the machinery that could lead to what history suggests might sometimes be the wrong steps being taken.
	I am thinking in particular of Terry Fields, who was jailed for 60 days in 1991 and was probably released to a hero’s welcome, as indeed was Tommy Sheridan in Scotland, although he was not an elected politician when he was also jailed for non-payment of the poll tax. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) made an important point about the Cyprus situation in the 1950s. He suggested that Members should be given a degree of latitude and have the freedom to speak their minds, because sometimes an uncomfortable truth is a great servant to us all.
	The open route would allow us more easily to ignore some of the many reasons that the establishment might see as triggers for a recall, and allow us to take a more open approach. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said in an intervention on the opening speech, it should be no longer MPs who define their own behaviour, but society at large. The open method allows the recall mechanism to be a dynamic process that takes account of circumstances. Some might feel that lying to the country or to Parliament to take the nation to war might reasonably be open to recall but that would not be included in legislation by the Government.
	The overarching point is that recall should be a sanction of last resort. It should not be used much, and hopefully it will not be used much—it should be little needed and little used—but it is a sanction that should be available. At the stage we are at now in our ever-evolving democratic countries—evolving due to social media, certainly—the proposals before us would provide another arm of participatory democracy.
	Whoever instigates a recall and whatever mechanism triggers it, it should have a reasonable chance of success. I mentioned the example of Terry Fields. He would have been re-elected anyway, and to use the recall mechanism against an MP who is clearly going to come back with a thumping majority would be an abuse. It should have a real chance of succeeding in removing the MP. As has been said, perhaps an MP removal mechanism is what it is. Therefore, and perhaps with the fear of the vexatious recall in mind as well, we might consider requiring a bond or deposit—some sum so that those engaged in this have to put some money where their mouths are, as do those who engage in elections or by-elections, in order for them genuinely to demonstrate to the wider public that this is not a whim.

Kevan Jones: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but that would not stop a wealthy individual. It would not stop the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for example, as he could obviously afford to lose his deposit, and in the United States it did not stop people such as the Koch brothers, who put £2 million into the Colorado recall of the state Senators who introduced gun control. I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am not sure this would stop big business and big interests.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman might be correct in some of that, but we do live in an imperfect world. All I would say to him is that this removes many of the imperfections and is an improvement on the current situation.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech, and I agree with I think everything he has just said.
	The points about moneyed interests are arguments against all elections, not just recalls. It would be possible for the Koch brothers to influence any election, not just recalls. That is another problem we need to address: there are arguments to be had about regulating the process so that that cannot happen. These arguments are not about recall; they are about democracy.

Angus MacNeil: I think there is a debate going on around me here about the influence of money in politics, and hopefully we are not quite in the same scenario as the United States of America in that respect, although it would be wrong to say that the influence of money is negligible in politics at whatever level, including general elections, by-elections or, perhaps, recall elections.
	Some Members have argued that a general election is a form of recall, but I dispute that. Should a Member face recall, they will be facing recall on one point, with the eyes of the country, and particularly of their constituency, on the cause of the recall. In a general election Members come face to face with other candidates, as they would in a recall election, but the issues of the day can sweep a candidate into winning a seat. We have often seen over the last number of elections that some candidates have won to their own surprise; it is clearly not the candidate who has been elected personally, but instead it is support for their party or the issue of the day that has taken them to victory. Therefore a by-election or general election is not a recall election.
	One of the most concerning aspects of the recall measures before us is the Government’s wording of clause 1(3), which mentions an MP who
	“has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained”.
	The word “detained” leaves us with quite a difficult situation. According to House of Commons notes, during this Parliament at least four sitting MPs have been detained by the police but not prosecuted. I will not name them because they do not deserve that. The detaining and imprisoning of people could, under the Government’s mechanisms, enable 10% to push for a by-election, and that would be wrong.
	We must, I think, conduct a thorough experiment. Not many of us would like to imagine that we live in a country in which we have politically motivated arrests and people being detained because of mistaken identity—the measure does not even allow for the possibility of mistaken identity. Let us imagine that the detention was heavy-handed and wrong. Imagine too that the system was taken as a gold standard and used in other places. We could have a situation in which different standards in a different time and place would allow somebody to be detained, which could lead to a 10% trigger to an election, and that could be taken as a benchmark across the world. It is difficult to see how people could withstand the pressure of that.

Thomas Docherty: I hope that the Minister will intervene on this matter. My understanding is that detention is not being held without bail, but is an English law term. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that situation at some point later in the debate.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and there should be absolutely no ambiguity here. The fact is that this is a point of debate. Therefore, whether he is right, I am right or the truth lies somewhere in between does not matter. The point is that there is some ambiguity in the words, and it should not be there. If that is the situation, it leaves a process that is open to abuse. Although we would all like to think that we live in a country that follows the rules of fair play, a country that adopts this system might not. Standards might change here over time. By-elections with a biased national media are a lot more plentiful than we would imagine. The result could be quite different and justice—the point of this is justice—would not be seen to be done.
	Recall has to be real, in the hands of the people and open to the circumstances of the society in which it operates. As I have said, there will be circumstances that we cannot possibly imagine today. I have already mentioned the taking of a country to war, and there will be other such situations. If the Government do not listen to our amendments, will they, at the very least, clarify what they mean by “detain”. Surely, too, they must raise the barrier of 10%. There is better thinking in front of them. I commend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for his work, and I agree with just about all of his amendments bar one, which we will discuss later.

Mark Field: Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that there has been too much
	self-flagellation as part and parcel of the process that has led towards this Bill, we cannot dispute that a lot of the concerns that underline these measures are to do with trust—I am talking specifically about trust in the political and parliamentary process. The public appetite for parliamentary recall was turbo-charged by the reputationally ruinous expenses scandal that broke in 2009. That brought to public attention the decades-long scandal of a self-regulated system in which secrecy and opaqueness by the political establishment were the watchwords. That was then compounded by the calamitous rearguard attempts by the parliamentary great and good to use the courts to prevent the publication of details of dubious expenditure claims of public money—a process that was sensationally broken open by
	The D
	aily 
	Telegraph
	.
	Slowly but surely this place has been dragged into playing catch-up. Ever since the expenses scandal, this House has paid lip service to the importance of restoring public confidence in the political process. A central part of that has been the public insistence for genuinely independent regulation. Yet the centrepiece of this Bill flies in the face of giving our voters, rather than political insiders, the authority to drive recall.
	I regret that the coalition’s revolutionary intentions, as set out in May 2010, have been so watered down.

Douglas Carswell: Does the hon. Gentleman have any confidence in his party leadership’s record on political reform?

Mark Field: That is a rather unfair question. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party leadership until a few weeks ago. I have some confidence—perhaps hope springs eternal—that there will be other elements of reform going through. I am afraid that the constitutional record of the coalition Government has been lamentable in the way that it has worked out.
	As hon. Members have said, it is entirely understandable that the Government have tried to find a mechanism to weed out trivial or vexatious complaints. For sure, there will be abject disagreement on purely partisan political issues, as well as furious disagreements between an elector and his or her parliamentary representative, but that should never trigger the recall process.
	As I am now disagreeing with the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell)—my friend, but my former hon. Friend—I should congratulate him on his recent re-election. I know that he pays the closest possible attention to these issues. Although we profoundly disagree about the desirability of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and about immigration policy—I think it is in the national interest that we have a calm and rational debate, rather than one that plays to members of his current party—we were, as instinctive democrats, in the same Lobby for the November 2011 referendum vote and with regard to House of Lords reform, which would have brought about an elected second Chamber. Our views are similarly aligned on the importance of sound money and the need for a much more urgent emphasis on deficit reduction than seems acceptable to Britain’s political elite.
	More importantly, in this era of established political parties being set out in law, surely an elected representative’s decision to switch political parties should automatically trigger a recall. I would support an amendment to
	achieve that if the hon. Gentleman were to table one. I respect his decision and that of the erstwhile Member for Rochester and Strood to put their money where their mouth is and let their electors determine their future. Why should voters be deprived of the opportunity to hold to account an MP who switches parties but is unwilling to resign? Surely that should be a prima facie reason for recall.
	I fear, however, that the Minister has instead boiled down the grounds of recall to just two small conditions, the first of which applies to criminal convictions and will operate along similar lines that already exist for expulsion from the House. However, the second condition, which applies if the Standards Committee imposes a suspension from the House of 21 or more sitting days, is much too open to party managers’ political manipulation. Let us not be naive about the conduct of party leaderships and the Whips Offices. They will, as they have always done, try to manipulate such a process to protect or condemn as they see fit. After all, that is what party managers do, and that is precisely why they must have no part whatsoever in the recall process. The overriding need to restore public trust is the reason why they should have no opportunity to interfere with the recall process.
	The Standards Committee is still appointed, rather than elected by the House as a whole, so while its members are often able and diligent, that has the consequence that emollient and obedient MPs may be selected as its members, especially if a helpful outcome to a sensitive case is desired. As we all know, if cases come before that Committee, the House is able to impose penalties ranging from expulsion and suspension, to an order to repay moneys, when appropriate. It is all too easy to see how favoured sons and daughters—errant Ministers perhaps—might be made subject to stringent repayment conditions, but have imposed on them a suspension that is lenient enough not to trigger the second recall condition. I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about that.
	I fear that this is not a wild academic concern. Let us consider some of the matters that have recently come before the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee, and then the House. For example, two former Cabinet Ministers were both ordered to repay more than £40,000 in inappropriately claimed second-home expenses by the commissioner. Following long and protracted inquiries, no doubt aided and abetted by an unhealthy interest from party managers, they were subject to a sanction that would not have triggered recall, even though the strength of public opinion meant that they both had to resign their ministerial office.
	By contrast, in the past year two independent-minded Back Benchers—Patrick Mercer and Denis MacShane—have resigned from the House after being suspended for long terms, although neither had made similarly substantial personal financial gain requiring the repayment of public money. I do not wish to draw entirely direct comparisons between those sets of cases. I simply ask the House to reflect on the fact that the mere perception that pressure might be brought to bear to favour MPs closer to party leaderships, or indeed to militate against those regarded as more easily expendable, will only further undermine public confidence in this new process.
	I very much agree with many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and look forward to these issues being debated at length in Committee. I do agree with the Minister that there is an increasingly strong case for a mechanism to allow constituents to recall their MP. In my view, there is an almost unanswerable case that we will have to have such a Bill. I am only sad to conclude that this Bill fails to rise to the occasion.

Frank Dobson: It is customary to begin a speech by declaring an interest, but in this case I can declare a disinterest, as I am not standing at the next general election. Also, so far as I know, in the year of the great expenses scandal my expenses were the lowest of any Member of Parliament. However, I am firmly opposed to the Bill, and not because it does not go far enough, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) argues, but because it proposes recalls at all.
	I was disturbed to hear the Minister describe the Bill as a first step. In my view it is the first step in a bit of fancy dancing at the top of what could turn out to be a very slippery slope heading in the direction of the things advocated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The proposition from the recall enthusiasts is that there should be provision so that MPs can be sacked between general elections—to quote the hon. Member for Richmond Park—
	“for whatever reason if the majority have lost confidence in them”.
	To say that that would be open to abuse by vested interests would be a grotesque understatement.
	I believe that the introduction of a recall mechanism along the lines outlined by the enthusiasts would have proved a great hindrance to social progress in this country, and to a lot of the changes that have led to our society becoming more decent. I point out that things become a consensus; they do not start off as such. A lot of the things that we now enjoy started off as very unpopular ideas, and we should do nothing that restricts MPs from taking up unpopular ideas that they believe to be right.
	Many of the things that I now value in our society, as I hope do many other Members, were seen as shocking when they were first launched by fearless MPs. They knew that their ideas were unpopular and would be seen as shocking, and the response from much of the news media and many people in here was not just an expression of opposition to their views, but personal vilification and smears.

Douglas Carswell: My right hon. Friend is arguing against allowing people to decide who their representatives are on the grounds that occasionally representatives might hold views that do not accord with the voters. Surely we should trust the voters, not to agree with everything a representative says, but to respect a representative for being frank and honest with them.

Frank Dobson: That is what I believe in. I do not believe that introducing a recall system will further that degree of independence.
	There is a brilliant example from my own constituency —not me, I rush to point out. My distinguished predecessor, Lena Jeger, was the Member for Holborn and St Pancras South, which was an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic constituency in the 1960s. Lena Jeger was an advocate of abortion law reform. She was one of the sponsors of David Steel’s Bill that became the Abortion Act 1967. It would have been a simple matter for opponents of what she was advocating to get together 10% or 20% of people to oppose what she was doing.

Douglas Carswell: indicated dissent.

Frank Dobson: It is no good people who do not agree with me shaking their heads, because I am sure that is the truth.

Zac Goldsmith: The example that the hon. Gentleman gives is an argument for recall. The Member of Parliament he describes, whose views were apparently at odds with those in her constituency, was nevertheless elected seven times in seven general elections despite holding those views. You can trust your constituents, and that is a case in point.

Frank Dobson: Yes, but she would have been put to all the bother and expense of fighting for her seat in the middle of a parliamentary—

Zac Goldsmith: That is the idea.

Frank Dobson: I know that is the idea, and that is what is wrong with it. That is why it is a stupid idea.
	This is intended to punish certain individuals, but it would have the effect of persuading a lot of other people who were feeling a bit edgy about things not to go ahead and stick to their principles because they might be set upon. That would not necessarily be done by an innocent group of individual electors—it could be the product of a very lengthy campaign by nasty people in the news media or, these days, some squalid, awful campaign in the social media, which built up over a long period of time and was almost impossible for an individual Member of Parliament to resist. We need to be very careful about that.
	A lot of the things we enjoy today were advocated and supported by Lena Jeger and people like her, in the face of many objections. They include a lot of stuff to do with women’s rights, equal pay, family planning, outlawing racial discrimination, being in favour of abolishing capital punishment, being in favour of gay rights, and being in favour of in vitro fertilisation. More recently, people might have been subject to recall, depending on their constituency, for voting for or against the hunting ban—or, even more recently, voting for or against same-sex marriage. I can see some advantages in the idea of recall for such reasons. No doubt the Liberal Democrats would not have been very keen on innumerable recalls being launched when they went back on their promise not to increase student fees, and nearly every Tory and Lib Dem MP probably would not have fancied a recall over the NHS reforms. Even with those two attractive features, however, I do not support the proposition of recall.
	When I make my position clear to my constituents, as I always try to do, they say, “How would you deal with the expenses fiddlers?” All I say is, “All the spectacular
	ones disappeared at the general election, so the system got ’em in the end.” As we know from the saying usually ascribed to Talleyrand, revenge is a dish best enjoyed cold. Even in an era of instant gratification, waiting for a general election should prove okay.
	I absolutely accept that the Government Bill is a very shabby coalition compromise. There have been many objections to the triggers relating to a Member being jailed. Another trigger is misconduct that results in a Member being suspended for 21 days or more. Let us get this clear: this proposal is not about a Member being suspended for 21 days or more; it is about either being suspended for a short period or being sentenced to recall. It is not about the amount of time for which a Member might reasonably be suspended. I think that that could result in a lot of scandal—real or invented—being stirred up by the news media or social media. We all have to agree that there would be nothing objective or quasi-judicial about that process. It might be reasonably like going before the Standards Committee, but the decision would be taken on the Floor of the House.
	“Objective” and “quasi-judicial” are not terms I would usually apply to a debate on that sort of thing. People might say that I am saying that the process would be a kangaroo court, but that is an insult to kangaroos. The decision would, generally speaking, be party politically motivated. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has said, it is fairly clear that, even without the threat of recall, this place has treated some Members very differently from others even when they were guilty—if that is the right word—of the same wrongdoings.
	I am aware that Edmund Burke lost the general election in Bristol after saying that he would betray the electors rather than serve them if he sacrificed his judgment to their opinions. That is fine, because that is what we are talking about: the judgment made at the general election. I find it rather odd that, even though he is usually portrayed as the philosophical father of conservatism, so many Conservative Members do not seem to agree with him.
	The proposed process is not democratic in any way. Under the Government’s proposal, which is worse than that of recall enthusiasts, just 10% of the electorate would need to sign a petition. There would not be any provision for the other 90% to say, “We don’t think there should be a recall.” It would, therefore, be possible for 10% to sign up and get a recall under way, even if the vast majority of people living in a particular area were opposed to it.
	The threat to the MP is not just that they might lose their job, but that they would have to go through a horrible process, which would be expensive, in both a personal and a party political sense, even if they survived the recall. That is something we ought to try to avoid.
	Another problem is that the proposal would deter Members from sticking to the views they deeply hold. If they saw another Member suffer for sticking by their principles, a lot of them would start wondering whether it was still a good idea to do so themselves. Anything that discourages Members from sticking to their principles is bad. My electors have elected me eight times with varying majorities and I have always tried to tell the truth, because I am fairly secure in the feeling that, at a general election, what I have done will be looked at in
	the round by my electorate. However, a recall system would not look at things in the round, but at a specific and particular issue.
	I have mentioned my distinguished predecessor, Lena Jeger. In 1974, I canvassed on her behalf. I called on a family I had got rehoused into a really rather nice flat, and the mother came to the door. They were definitely a Roman Catholic family. All the five daughters had the vote, as did the dad, so with the mum that made seven votes. People were not very sure about the likely outcome of the general election—I cannot remember which it was of the two general elections in 1974—and the mother said, “We want Mrs Jeger to support tightening up the abortion law.” I thought for a minute about whether to say, “Oh, she’ll do it.” Then I thought, “No. If she was here, she would tell the truth.” I therefore said, “No, I don’t think she will. She was one of the sponsors of what is now the law.” The mum said, “I’m sorry, but I don’t think we’ll be able to vote for her.” On election day, I happened to pass their polling station when all seven of them came out, and called, “Frank, Frank”. I went across the road, and they said, “It’s all right. We’ve voted for Mrs Jeger because you told us the truth.” Telling the truth, and being judged at general elections in the round for what we do, is what should continue.
	I believe that the proposals will massively strengthen the hands of rich individuals and pressure groups, as well as vindictive media campaigns and unprincipled and manipulative social media targeting, and that they will ultimately be reactionary. People have benefited from changes pushed for by individual MPs who made themselves unpopular at the time they did so, and they will realise that we need to encourage such MPs, not do them down.

Richard Drax: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). [Interruption.] He may have a safe seat, but it was a great privilege. I listened very carefully to what he said—like him, I do not support recall at all—and I agreed with every word as he set out his reasons for not supporting the Bill or the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).
	I think that this is rather a sad day—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) is shaking his head, so I am doomed from the start. There again, he used to shake his head at me when he sat on the Government Benches, so perhaps I will just get on with my speech.
	It is a sad day when in a place where we are meant to be honourable—the huge majority are honourable—we are navel gazing, as it were, about how we do behave, while all around us the world is in meltdown, with eurozone economies about to go splat again and wars across the world. There are very serious issues, but we are discussing us, which is what our electorate are not so keen about.
	Millions of people have died in two world wars and in other wars for our freedom. Several Members have praised and applauded our system of democracy in this country, and I join them in doing so. This is the most extraordinary place that I have ever been in. It is bigger than us, and so it should remain. The day we tame it is
	the day that democracy will really start to die in this country. The general election is the most special day for all of us, as well as for our electorate and the country. It is the day on which many of us lose our jobs, many of us keep our jobs and many candidates earn their jobs. Anything that undermines that extraordinary event has to be considered seriously. It could seriously damage the democracy that so many people have died to protect.
	I have no doubt that the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park are entirely honourable. I have a lot of respect for him and all those who will support his amendments, and I have respect for the Government who brought forward the Bill. I hope that I do not disappoint the Government, my hon. Friend and other Members by saying that when the Bill was first mooted some years ago, it was a knee-jerk reaction to events that had spun out of control, as is so often the case in this place. We panicked—I was not here, but in saying “we”, I speak collectively of the political class—and rightly so. Some had been found with their fingers in the till. To the electorate, that was completely unacceptable, and rightly so. The political class panicked and the recall Bill was mooted.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a Member is caught indulging in corrupt actions, I have no argument with their being deprived of their seat, ultimately. That is what happens at present. I am worried that people might be deprived of their seats because they express independent or difficult views. Therefore, before the Bill becomes law, we must amend it to ensure that the House of Commons cannot expel anybody for expressing an individual view that the House as a whole does not like.

Richard Drax: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. As always, his words are wise and should be listened to by us all.
	I am concerned by some of the comments that colleagues have made. Disparaging remarks have been made about MPs, the system, this place and our democracy itself. Members have said that we have somehow undermined democracy.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has used the word “democracy” a few times. As I am sure he and everybody else knows, democracy comes from the Greek for the rule of the people. If we believe in democracy, what can be wrong with the recall Bill?

Richard Drax: If the hon. Gentleman will hold on for a few moments, I will hopefully answer his question.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will my hon. Friend turn his attention to Members of Parliament who are voted for by the electorate for one political party, but who chose to defect mid-term? That happened in Shrewsbury when my predecessor defected from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. It caused a great many problems. Would he support some form of recall mechanism in those circumstances?

Richard Drax: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier, but I talked about honour, which is sadly lacking in some cases. My view is that if somebody
	changes party mid-term, the honourable thing to do is to submit himself or herself to the people, as the hon. Member for Clacton and his colleague have done. Legislation is a very dangerous tool to use. I have been here for a very short time—just four years—but I think that what the public want to see is some honour and principle back in this place. Those things are here. I am not saying that they are absent. They were a bit absent, but we have learned our lesson—I hope.
	Legislation is such a heavy tool. When we introduce a piece of legislation, we seldom ask what the consequences will be. We do not ask, “What if?” If we raise a tax, we do not ask people what effect it will have on their business. Do we ever say that? I suspect that it happens occasionally, but not on the whole. I agree with what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that we need legislation to achieve what he wants.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is not in his seat, said that the leviathan is groaning. I think he was referring to this place and the democratic system as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that there is a “chasm” between the electorate and this place, but I argue that that is not the case as far as conduct is concerned. Some Members have misbehaved, but they are in the minority. Where I believe my right hon. Friend is right, however, is that all too often politics and principle have been surrendered for a coalition—to name but one reason—or to “grab the centre ground”. How often do we hear that? People perhaps react to opinion polls, rather than following their gut instinct. I read a comment about Winston Churchill, and when he was shown an opinion poll all he growled was, “Every time I see one of those, I do the opposite.” He followed his gut.
	I do not know what my colleagues hear on the doorstep, but I get, “Richard, we want you to follow your principles and what you believe in. That is what we want to hear.” The lack of blue water, red water, yellow water, or whatever water it is, has been diluted over the years—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps that was an unfortunate phrase; I take the point of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), but he understands what I mean. There is a lack of clarity and political principle, and in some cases when dealing with huge issues—not least immigration—there appears to the public to be a lack of political will, for all kinds of reasons. That is the view of the public out there, not that we are all tucking into our expenses, going on freebies and having endless affairs, or whatever it is alleged we are up to. If we took 650 people in any other walk of life, I would be interested in what we would find if we opened up that can in a big retailer, a bank, a hospital, or whatever. I guarantee that we are no different to the rest of the population.

Andrew Percy: I am a little confused. My hon. Friend keeps saying that there is a big chasm between us and the public, but is not the threat of recall one way of removing that? Recall would require Members of Parliament to be more honest and true to their opinions, and perhaps those of their electorate.

Richard Drax: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but—dare I say it—I think it is a little simplistic because so many other factors govern an
	MP’s life and the way he or she behaves. There is, for example, party loyalty, although many would call me a rebel so perhaps I am not a good example of that.

Charles Walker: We in this place all search for a silver bullet and an easy solution to our problems. In 2009 it was the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that would resolve all these problems. Has it? I do not think so. We must be realistic. Recall may have a place, but the idea that it will somehow restore faith in this place is pie in the sky.

Richard Drax: I agree entirely. What will restore faith in this place is us—the parties and individuals that make up this great place. It is our duty to do that, and I do not think we need a recall Bill to prove that point.
	As I have said, the Bill, sadly, is a knee-jerk reaction. The hon. Member for Clacton asked why it has taken four and a half years to come to this place, and I wonder—no doubt I shall be shot down by the three party leaders and many of my colleagues—whether because it was a knee-jerk reaction, in time people have thought, “Is this actually a sensible Bill?” I think they have come to the conclusion that in the main it is not, although at the time it may have seemed attractive, and to a certain extent it may have appeased the electorate. Will it solve the problem? I do not believe it will.
	There is some logic to the Government Bill. Apparently, there are no rules and regulations if we get a custodial sentence under 12 months. If we do receive a custodial sentence—there have been various examples of that—it means there are big questions to be asked, and in a sense the Bill covers that. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras said he was concerned about the figure of 10%, and asked about the other 90%. Again, I entirely concur with that point.
	I also agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend, but I do not agree with any of his amendments for all the reasons I have set out. I shall not repeat them, but I would like to point out what the letter we all received from Cabinet Office Ministers, dated 20 October 2014, says in explaining the intention of the Bill:
	“In formulating their proposals the Government has examined international models which allow elected representatives to be recalled on any grounds. The recall model proposed in the Government’s Bill fits with and goes further than Parliamentary democracies similar to ours—Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not have recall in their main legislatures.”
	I do not like comparisons with other countries. They are always dangerous. One of the many reasons why the eurozone is such a complete flop is that all the countries are so different and cannot be put in the same straitjacket. The same principle applies here.
	I shall move on briefly to another point that counters the Bill. We are all elected by our local associations. Each party has its own system. Were I to commit an offence that constituted serious misconduct, I have no doubt—I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House would have no doubt—that I would be summoned to the local association office to explain myself. That is the local face of our party. The local associations select us and they have the power to deselect us. In that conversation, if my chairman was to say to me, “Richard, up with you
	we shall not put any longer”, I hope that, if my action had been so heinous, I would have already resigned. However, if I had not resigned I would be pushed. If the chairman did not do the job then, along with the party hierarchy, the party should be prepared to say to the sitting MP, “Up with this we will not put.”
	That leads to a question. Let us say the polls are against the party and the sitting MP and suddenly there is a potential by-election. Every instinct in the parliamentary party would say, “For heaven’s sake, a by-election is the last thing we need in that seat.” But this is where honour, responsibility and all the things we must show to the public that we have come in; and I believe that we do have those things. The party hierarchy should say, “Tough. We may lose this seat, but the sitting MP has committed such a heinous crime that we have to get rid of him or her and have a by-election.” Those are the sort of people who should be making these decisions. They should not be made by legislation.

Angus MacNeil: If we think back to the expenses scandal, is the hon. Gentleman saying that nothing dishonourable happened among any Member still in this House?

Richard Drax: I am not quite sure I got that, because I am so staggered by the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could rephrase it, because it did not make sense.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that during the expenses scandal nothing dishonourable happened—he has said so much about honour—among any Member who was subsequently re-elected?

Richard Drax: I am not sure I have ever said that. In fact, I have said the opposite. If people have behaved—let us take the expenses scandal—in a dishonourable way, they should go, yes.

Angus MacNeil: Have they all gone?

Richard Drax: Ah. That is another question. I am not going to look back with hindsight. I was not even here. We are where we are, and I do not believe that a recall Bill would have made any difference in this instance. The expenses scandal has unfortunately caused all of us in this place to look backwards. The point has been made to me on many occasions, in spite of the fact that I was not here. Even now, the shadow of that appalling time hangs over this place. We have to shake it off and put it behind us. People have paid and some have gone to jail. We should move on in a way that allows us, as the responsible adults and grown-up politicians we are all meant to be, to please the electorate in the way they want to be pleased: by behaving in an honourable fashion.

Stewart Jackson: It is as well to remember that the expenses scandal in the 2005-10 Parliament was the result not merely of individual foibles but of a collective, institutional failure to embrace openness and transparency —under the previous Government but with the collusion of other parties; it was not solely the result of the malfeasance of individual Members.

Richard Drax: I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely; he is absolutely right.
	I was not here, but I have heard from those who were that the expenses scandal was sparked not least by a lack of clarity about what could be claimed. Nowadays, there are MPs appearing in the newspapers for buying staplers and other perfectly legitimate things for the office, so it has gone from one extreme to the other. We all know if we have behaved dishonourably or done something wrong, and if it is so heinous, we should leave our job; of that I have absolutely no doubt.
	I ask the Government to think carefully about the Bill. If it becomes law, I fear there will be a gathering momentum, as is often the case with such legislation, to add on bits. Indeed, amendments are already being discussed. I have listened all afternoon—it is important to hear people’s views—and people are already keen to add on bits. The hon. Member for Clacton, who is no longer in his place, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) about an incinerator plant that 65,000 of his constituents were against; my hon. Friend said that had he voted for the plant, it might have sparked a recall. I think the hon. Gentleman was rather amazed that the point was raised.
	To conclude, we are here to represent our constituents for a period of five years—not that I agree with fixed-term Parliaments; incidentally, if I may get in some free advertising, there is a debate about that on Thursday. On the matter in hand, however, will the Government please think carefully about this Bill? It should be a matter of honour, honour, honour, not legislation, legislation, legislation.

Mark Durkan: I struggle to find any part of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) with which I can associate myself, but he has clearly stated his opposition to the Bill and the amendments that we know are to come from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and others. As one of those in the pick-up band of MPs the hon. Member for Richmond Park put together to sit as a cross-party committee to consider an alternative Bill, obviously I support the general thrust of the amendments, but I also take the point, aired as a trailer for subsequent debates, that some of them need to be tested just as much as some of the clauses in the Bill before us do.
	Warning against legislation, the hon. Member for South Dorset said that the Bill addressed an issue that should not be dealt with by legislation, but which should be left to honour and responsibility. He indicated that hon. Members know when we have done something wrong and will take the appropriate course of action, and that we do not need any rules. If we took that argument to its extreme, we would not even have the Standards Committee, because we would simply know automatically that we had done wrong and would make amends; there would be no need for anybody else to come to a judgment—we could be entirely reliant on our own sense of honour and conscience—but clearly that is not the case and would not wash with the public.

Graham Stuart: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he not think that what lies behind the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park
	(Zac Goldsmith) is a belief that trust in the people is the main thing, and that it is not honour, honour, honour from MPs that we need, but trust, trust, trust in the electorate to do the right thing?

Mark Durkan: Absolutely. I fully take the point. I believe that the bottom line, as regards the democratic principle, should be to trust the judgment of the electorate and to show belief and trust in their decisions by equipping them to deal with such issues. The idea that we must be protected from other judgments goes back to some of the issues that gave rise to some of the problems with the expenses scandal. I do not believe that this Bill is before us at this stage in this Parliament in the same way as the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was introduced at this stage in the last Parliament; I do not buy the argument that it is comparable panic or anything else.
	Long before we had the expenses scandal, there were many warnings that the expenses system was open to a lot of confusion and potential abuse, and that it was ripe to scandalise the public if there was more transparency. Those warnings were not heeded and the Good Ship Lollipop ran aground on what was leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

Edward Leigh: Everyone agrees with the hon. Gentleman about such bad behaviour, but does he agree with us on the following point, if on no other? Under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, the House of Commons should not be allowed to initiate any recall procedure on the basis of the views expressed by a Member, or his votes, or the party he joins, or any political act. The protection is similar to that which we have under the Act of Settlement: we are not held to account outside for what we say here.

Mark Durkan: I certainly believe that hon. Members should be clearly protected when expressing their views properly, honourably and honestly as legislators in this House. I firmly believe that legislators should be properly protected in doing their conscientious duty in this House, but when someone is elected for one party and suddenly flips to join another, a constituency should be able to recall that MP. That is why I support amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

Stewart Jackson: I am afraid that kind words butter no parsnips. If the hon. Gentleman supports the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), he is essentially allowing a value judgment by a minority of the electorate in each constituency, subject to the recall procedure, to be the determinant factor, so he cannot give that guarantee on, for instance, a moral or conscience issue.

Mark Durkan: I am almost being prompted to speak specifically to some of the amendments. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked me about a decision being taken by this House to, in effect, activate the expulsion proceedings—the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was right to say that this is an expulsion Bill, rather than a recall Bill. The principle of recall is meant to be in the hands of the voters. The voters in a constituency elect an MP and the power of recall is meant to lie with them, but the Bill is
	not about a power of recall that lies with the voters. It is about the power to initiate a recall petition being in the hands of this House or of the court; and, particularly if the process was activated because that Member’s views were not comfortable for others in the House, an election would be called simply on the basis of 10% of the constituents signing a petition. It is wrong that a recall should be triggered, with someone losing their seat and having to go into a by-election, on the basis of 10% of the vote.

Stephen McCabe: I do not know whether my hon. Friend plans to serve on the Bill Committee, but given his knowledge and expertise I think that that would be a great advantage to us. Is not the challenge to try to find something better than the original Government proposals and that addresses the need for the public to feel that they have recall power while protecting people from the political risks of the amendments? Is not the challenge to find something in the middle, perhaps better defining the kinds of offences that would lead to recall—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Stephen McCabe: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mark Durkan: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says, which is why I have said that just as some of the clauses in the Bill need to be tested, so do some of the amendments to which I have added my name. Their practicality and implications need to be teased out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Durkan: Before I take another intervention, I want to go back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). He said that we as MPs know what our role is, but I do not know where the job description of a Member of Parliament is. I do not know what our terms of office are or what our pledge of office is. I hear people quoting Edmund Burke and see them pointing to “Erskine May” and a variety of other standards, but at no point do we have a pledge of service that clarifies the standards to which we pledge.
	My belief is that there should be a pledge of service. I do not believe in the simple affirmation of the oath of allegiance being the only terms on which someone comes to this place to represent their constituents. If we had a different pledge of office—it could include a statement of allegiance for those who wanted it—to affirm and encapsulate the standards of public life and a commitment to proper parliamentary principles, it could provide the basis on which anyone would have to mount a recall challenge. That would give more protection to MPs and would prevent the fear of an “anything goes” situation, with people looking to do “gotcha” petitions against different MPs of different parties in different parts of the country.

Daniel Kawczynski: Before the hon. Gentleman was interrupted, he spoke momentarily about what happens when a Member of Parliament defects from one party to another. I feel extremely strongly about this issue. It caused a huge amount of concern in my own constituency when the previous Labour MP defected to the Liberal
	Democrats. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in future the people must always be able to recall a Member of Parliament when he changes sides? People vote for parties, not for individuals.

Mark Durkan: If people want to recall on that basis, yes, they should be able to do so, which is why I am supporting the amendments. The hon. Gentleman challenges me on something that I have already stated I believe in.

Charles Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend—I refer to him in that way because I like him very much—on most things, but the beauty of being a Member of Parliament is that there is no job description. It is not a job; it is a vocation. We all bring our unique experiences to this place, and I think that anything that undermined that would be to the detriment of the House of Commons.

Mark Durkan: I take the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not accept it literally. If we are to talk about having a recall power—whether it be in the terms of this Bill or any other—I believe there needs to be a yardstick. If the House of Commons is to adjudicate itself or to ask a select number of us are to adjudicate the rest in respect of standards and privileges, there must be some clear standards.
	Many of the misgivings people have expressed about the decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee over recent years have been because there has not been an apparent consistent standard in some of the judgments made and the decisions subsequently transacted. If we as hon. Members have misgivings about how those decisions are made and if we do not always understand them, why should we not expect the public to suspect the same thing? Should we be able to say, “Unlike many other people about whom we legislate, and unlike in many other walks of life where we provide all sorts of detailed schedules, guidelines and regulations, we are to be entirely free agents. We are the purest of democratic angels, moved by whatever spirit or inspiration takes us, and we are to be trusted as such”? We cannot present ourselves in that way.
	Let me return to core points about the Bill’s deficiencies. As hon. Members have said, it is essentially an expulsion Bill rather than a recall Bill. Recall is meant to put things in the hands of the voters. Calling this measure the Recall of MPs Bill is a bit like the old joke about the two-hour dry cleaners: “‘Come back next Monday and you’ll get your suit.’ “But it says ‘two-hour dry cleaners’ outside”. ‘No, that’s just the name of the shop.’” Recall of MPs seems to be just the name of the Bill; that capacity is not given to voters. Insofar as a role is given to voters in respect of the recall process, it is simply that if someone triggers either of the two mechanisms, 10% will trigger a by-election. I think that the idea of a by-election being triggered by 10% is wrong, particularly if there has been a lot of speculation and felon setting by the media, which hon. Members fear. Those who fear that sort of scenario should certainly oppose the Bill as it stands.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about the 10%, but will it not be dealt with by one of the safeguards proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)? We would have
	the 5% step, the 20% step and then a referendum involving a binary choice before a by-election took place. Rather than a minority activity, there would then be a majority activity of choosing to have a recall by-election.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Those of us who were members of the pick-up band that was organised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park wanted to ensure that there could be a trigger other than a parliamentary trigger, or a trigger from the courts, and the idea of putting what could be termed a 5% premise petition in the hands of constituents struck us as reasonable. Having been received, the petition would then have to be tested by a more qualified assessment—the 20% petition—and if that was successful, it would be followed by a referendum which would have to secure to a 50% vote before a by-election could take place.
	Some Members have expressed the fear that voters will be whipped up into a state of prejudice, and that there will be misrepresentation of people and a disproportionate focus on certain issues. I ask them to consider both the stages and the time scale that are proposed in the amendments that some of us support. It is even possible that the time scale is too long. The amendments would allow more protection and more measured consideration. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) told us earlier that his constituents, who had a very clear view on a very specific issue, were eventually prepared to vote for an MP who held completely the opposite view, because they had reached a more rounded judgment on the nature of the MP’s job, and because they set great store by truth and people being honest about their opinions.

Sammy Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, notwithstanding the safeguards that he has described, in Northern Ireland a group with the organisational ability possessed by Sinn Fein could unseat an MP whom it believed to be vulnerable because that MP was already in a marginal seat. Such a well-organised group could surmount all the barriers that he has outlined, and request a recall on spurious grounds.

Mark Durkan: People can organise petitions, and perhaps they can achieve the 5% and perhaps they can then achieve the 20%, but after that there would be the referendum. Even in Northern Ireland, where people have their own views, I have always found them to be fairly tolerant of MPs with different views if they know that those MPs are being honest and diligent.
	Many years ago, I had to run the campaign in South Down against Enoch Powell, who represented a minority opinion in the constituency at the time. I remember that even nationalists in that constituency said, “Well, whatever else he is, he is certainly a hard-working and diligent MP.” They did not agree with his views, but they knew his views, and they knew that he did his job. Of course, he also raised his hat to them when he was in the constituency and greeted them, and they seemed to like that as well. Even in the context of Northern Ireland, and speaking as a Member whose seat has been heavily targeted by Sinn Fein, which is investing an awful lot of
	effort and resources, I do not believe that fear of the outcome described by the hon. Gentleman is sufficient reason to oppose a more meaningful recall provision.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman address a very particular situation in Northern Ireland, namely the anonymity of donations to political parties? Fears have been expressed this afternoon about the ability of the very wealthy to buy a recall. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that? Will he also take the opportunity to correct an earlier intervention, and confirm that voters vote not just for parties but, on occasion, for candidates who present themselves as independents?

Mark Durkan: I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point. People do indeed vote for candidates who present themselves as independents, some of whom have a very distinguished record, as in her case. Voters can make sound judgments not only on the basis of party loyalty or traditional party affinity but on the quality of service they want. The hon. Lady is again a good example. She asked me about donations. Thanks to some rearguard efforts in the Chamber in relation to a Bill that was previously before the House, we are now considering a timeline for introducing donor anonymity, albeit with some qualifications. The proposals for recalls could be an even stronger reason to focus on clarifying issues of anonymity, so that situations could not be abused in one direction or the other.
	Many Members appear to be raising concerns about how the process could be abused. Yes, there are all sorts of nefarious forces out there, and various interests that are equipped with money, with ill will and with power motives, but at the end of the day all our protection against that has to reside with the electorate. We come from the electorate and, when we leave this place, we go back to being part of the electorate. We should not try to proof ourselves or protect ourselves against the scrutiny and standards of democracy.
	I do not believe that recalls will be used in anything like the number of situations that are being envisaged, but the fact of their existence will add to the standing of Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras seemed to suggest that recalls could deter Members from sticking to their own views, but I believe that they could encourage them to do so. If a Member were being asked by the Whips to move from their own clear personal position and to adopt the stated party position, a proper recall mechanism would allow that Member to stand on the integrity of their position as an MP elected by their constituents, with whom their first and last loyalty lies.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this interesting debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In a sense, he and others who support the alternative approach, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), are looking for a Bill that would achieve a substantially different end from that of the Government’s Bill. I was surprised, however, that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park appear to argue that we should adopt that alternative approach precisely because they have constructed it in
	such a manner that it would be unlikely to have any effect. I know that accusations have been made, perhaps with some justification, that the Government’s Bill would result in relatively few instances in which a recall would be triggered, because Members would very likely resign instead, as other Members have in the recent past. However, I do not think we should be looking for a system that is so difficult to manipulate and in which recalls are so unlikely to happen that Members would, in practice, be proof against it.
	My starting point is that Members would have little to fear from being the subject of a referendum vote of the kind postulated in the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill, as opposed to the Bill we are considering today. I believe in the genius of the masses. The experience of my 17-plus years representing South Cambridgeshire has taught me that, although I might on many occasions have done something that a minority of my constituents disagreed with, I doubt that they would ever have actually turned me out between elections on those grounds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made a similar point.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend makes the point that those in favour of these amendments believe, as I think we all do across this argument, that most Members of this House behave honourably and that there will be very few instances in which the public, when they reflect seriously on the issues, seek to throw us out, but that is not a reason for not putting in place a recall—put that power with people and put trust in people to exercise it properly. The fact that it will be rarely used does not mean it is not important.

Andrew Lansley: I agree. I have been listening carefully to the debate, and it is interesting to consider under what circumstances the kind of mechanism—the kind of trigger for recall—that is not in the current recall Bill but that is proposed to be put into it in its place would impact on Members. I do not think it would be the prospect that they would be the subject of a referendum vote with 50% voting to have a by-election and the seat vacated. I think that is extremely unlikely. Much more likely, and in my view much more pernicious, is the possibility of large numbers of Members, over the course of a Parliament, being subject to a notice of intent to recall—with all the attendant impact that can have on an MP, not least when deployed by, and in the hands of, the media—for taking steps that may be in line with their manifesto and with the policy of their party or for taking an independent and potentially unpopular line, which, frankly, is even more laudable.
	If the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) and some others were here, they would say, “That’s simply putting yourself in a position where you have to listen to your constituents and respond to them.” That is fair enough. We could accept that if this was done simply on that basis, but I think it would be more dangerous if it was deployed in other circumstances.
	I made a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park about a Member who had not been the subject of due process. Under his Bill, somebody being charged with an indictable offence would stay the process, but we know perfectly well that substantial periods can pass during which people are the subject of very damaging allegations but are not charged with an offence.

Guy Opperman: I prosecuted nine murder trials and all manner of other things in my previous career, so I can endorse the fact that there will be a huge time gap in these matters. If we adopted the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the Member involved would simply be hounded out.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has such expertise, for endorsing that point.
	It goes even further. Often we are talking about offences that are not indictable. They are what are regarded as offences in the mind of the electorate. They may be genuine or they may not be genuine, but if they are genuine and bear upon conduct in this House and are, on the face of it, a breach of our code of conduct, they should be considered by due process. We are trying to make the process in this House as fair as possible.
	I have heard Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, be very critical of the processes relating to past decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Let us be clear: we have made changes in this Parliament to standards and privileges. We now have a Standards Committee that examines matters not solely at the behest of MPs who are members of the Committee but has three lay members. We should consider this Bill alongside, and I hope with the benefit of, the review that will be conducted by the Standards Committee and its lay members. I am sure that in Committee the Chair of the Standards Committee will be able to add further to that.
	When I was Leader of the House I made it clear to the Standards Committee that I saw these two things happening to some extent side by side, because the second trigger in this Bill depends upon the credibility and authority of the Standards Committee and the recommendations it makes. We can improve that. I think it will require more lay members and I think it will require a veto whereby a recommendation from the Standards Committee may not be made without the support of its lay members.
	For reasons not least of parliamentary privilege we cannot give lay members a vote. However, as Leader of the House I said—I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House confirmed this—that if there was a recommendation arising from a vote in the Committee on Standards relating to the conduct of a Member that did not have the support of the lay members, the point at which this House came to consider that recommendation, I would see it as my responsibility—I hope that my successors would too—to put alongside any motion that was presented by the Chair of the Committee an amendment that would reflect the view of the majority of the lay members of the Committee. Therefore, while it would remain true that the membership of the House as a whole was responsible constitutionally for the regulation of the conduct of Members of this House and for a decision to suspend or expel a Member, it would be transparent whether the House was acting directly in accordance with the majority view of lay members. It would of course be acting with the benefit of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

David Burrowes: My right hon. Friend places a lot of emphasis on the issue of due process, but due process is not necessarily just
	the preserve of this House. There can be due process through a proper and appropriate trigger, threshold and referendum. Ultimately, an election has a due process. We have heard about being concerned about reputational damage from spurious allegations and the rest. If there is a judicial process, the recall could be suspended. We are already besieged by spurious complaints. Surely we should put this to a proper recall mechanism so that the electorate can put up or shut up.

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am afraid that there are too many risks to be confident that the process of notice of intent to recall leading to the 20% petition could necessarily be regarded as objective and fair. All that is required to be done to damage substantially and perhaps fatally the reputation of a Member of Parliament is for such an allegation to be made, which may or may not lead to any charge for an offence or even relate to an offence and which may be something that is the product of their private and personal life and not of their activities in their professional responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. The fact that that kind of recall can be triggered for whatever reason gives an opportunity for substantial damage to be done without any objective and fair conclusion having been reached, which should be the case if one is going to have one’s livelihood put at risk in that way.

Stewart Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend not drawing the distinction between the Government’ proposals, which, although not perfect, are formalising the fact that the recall process will be around criminal behaviour and misdemeanours rather than the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), which will be focused on conscience and policy issues? That distinction is very dangerous, which is why my hon. Friend’s amendments should fall.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend leads me on to the most important aspect of this, which is that what is being sought here is an opportunity for recall in order to seek to influence the views of Members of Parliament. If that is not the case, why would the public be doing it? I have made the argument about allegations of poor behaviour. The Government’s recall Bill, which I support and was involved in, directs itself towards a perceived gap in the regulatory process relating to Members of Parliament who commit criminal offences or who behave in a manner that seriously breaches the code of conduct.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be wrong to have a power of recall to try to sanction Members of Parliament. This recall Bill puts in place an objective and fair process whereby, if something is proven, members of the public may, by means of a petition, recall a Member of Parliament and subject them to a by-election. However, the amendments that we will consider in due course would put in place a substantially different process by giving people the opportunity to intervene by saying, “You, as my Member of Parliament, are expressing a view with which I do not agree”—for reasons of conscience, policy, party or whatever it might be—“and I want to demonstrate that you are doing something that we do not agree with to try to influence you to take a different approach.”

Edward Leigh: I agree with everything that the former Leader of the House is saying, and I want to ask him a genuine question because he has tremendous expertise in this matter. Does he think that there might be scope to amend the Bill further on Report so that it is absolutely clear that no procedure may be initiated simply on the basis of a Member’s votes or views? Is there room for improvement?

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to think about that, and I am sure that our Front-Bench colleagues will also be willing to do so. My initial view is that the second trigger could be applied only in relation to serious breaches of the code of conduct of MPs so, by definition, views on policy expressed by Members in this Chamber could not in themselves represent such a breach.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Andrew Lansley: When I was Leader of the House, I always enjoyed hearing the often highly educated views of the shadow Minister, and I give way to him so that I can do so again.

Thomas Docherty: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was involved in the Bill’s drafting and that it is good to be filling a gap. Will he or the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is sitting next to him, explain why although the coalition agreement said that the Government would
	“bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall”,
	it has taken them four and a half years to bring forward this important Bill?

Andrew Lansley: The coalition agreement did say that, but draft legislation was published in 2011, which was reasonably early in a five-year Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: How were you involved?

Andrew Lansley: I was involved not least because of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s comments on the draft Bill but, more specifically for my purposes, because the Standards Committee suggested that the second trigger should be recast. The Standards Committee’s reservations are now dealt with in this Bill.

Charles Walker: As important as recall is, what was much more important in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 was fixing this country’s economy, and ensuring that people could pay their mortgages and remain in work. Let us not overestimate the Bill’s importance, because—dare I say?—the Public Gallery is not doing so.

Andrew Lansley: I do not suppose that I am overestimating the Bill’s importance, although it was important that we delivered on our manifesto promises and the coalition agreement. Achieving that was at the forefront of our minds as we set out our legislative programme, for which I had responsibility.
	I was slightly amused that the speech made by the hon. Member for Clacton was largely about the importance of delivering on promises made at the previous election. The Bill exactly delivers on the promise in the Conservative’s general election manifesto, and I think that that was why the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon.
	Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), started his speech by reminding us what that manifesto said. For me, as a Conservative, the Bill is directly in line with that promise, and shifting to a process that is substantially different from that under the Bill would involve making a presumption about what the legislation should be without our having a mandate from the electorate. The hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Clacton showed in their speeches that they would like a different constitutional settlement, of which the power of recall that they want is only one small aspect.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Graham Stuart: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is being very persistent, as ever, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart).

Angus MacNeil: I am trying to understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying, for example, that were a future Prime Minister to lie in order to take the country to war, duping Parliament and, by extension, its Committees, the public should have no sanction other than years later at a general election, when many other issues could be at stake?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, and not a hypothetical one—let us face it: he is referring to a decision of the kind taken in 2003. We have asked today how many people would sign petitions, write to their Member of Parliament or go to one of four designated places in a constituency in order to do something. Well, in my recollection, 2003 was the point when it was most likely that large numbers of the public would have taken some specific action in relation to a Government policy that they had not sanctioned, that certainly was not part of any previous manifesto promise and that they felt was wrong. That raises the following question: what would have happened in 2003 had recall been available?
	I say this in a disinterested way, because I did not vote for the invasion of Iraq and so this would not have affected me, but I think there are those who would argue that that is what it is all about—that in those circumstances members of the public would have had an opportunity to say, “Not in our name” by setting up petitions and giving notice of the intention to recall. Throughout the period of the conflict in Iraq there would have been a rebellion among the electorate.
	Is that right or wrong? I happen to think that necessarily it is wrong. To return to the constitutional point, we are a representative democracy in which we owe our constituents our collective judgment. We come here not as an independent legislature separate from the decisions of the Government, but to form a Government and sustain them through the legislature. That Government have to make decisions and secure the majority of this House, and we have to stick by that. This proposal would have completely undermined that.
	If we are looking for a way to undermine the proposal, let us imagine that it had been possible for the organisers of protests in 2003 to focus on the Prime Minister’s constituency and get 20% of the voters there to sign a petition. They would have done so, even though they
	recognised that there was no way they could get 50% on the subsequent vote, but it would have had such a destabilising impact on the Prime Minister of the day, in circumstances in which he was doing something that was deeply unpopular but that he felt was right—whether or not he was right is not the matter. I cannot see how a responsible Parliament in a representative democracy could go down that path.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for honouring his pledge to give way to me. I think that he has now come to the heart of the matter, certainly as far as the amendments from our hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) are concerned: whether the electorate would seek to use the power of recall to challenge Members on matters of conscience, on how they vote and, fundamentally, on how they do their job in this place. Hon. Friends who represent university towns might have found themselves subject to such proposals when it came to voting on tuition fees. On balance, I do not believe that the electorate would abuse that power, but I recognise that there is a risk. Does my right hon. Friend have any evidence that it would be misused, as we would see it, in that way?

Andrew Lansley: This is very difficult, because we are necessarily debating what the circumstances would be, but I have been struck by speeches arguing for amending the Bill on the basis that it will all be all right on the night. Well, legislation is not like that. Legislation is like writing a contract; if we write a contract with somebody—in this case with the electorate—we have to know how it will be used and what will happen when it starts to go wrong. It seems to me that at the moment the defences against those potential problems are not there in the alternative Bill proposed.

John Howell: Surely the evidence my right hon. Friend is looking for is in the bit of the Bill that is covered by the amendments. I have not been e-mailed by a single member of the public who is not also a member of 38 Degrees.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that I am not enamoured of 38 Degrees, but it is interesting to make that distinction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and his colleagues have constructed the proposition that one must physically go to one of four places in a constituency in order to disempower 38 Degrees and those who would try to create petitions on an online basis. If we start down this path, that is where the pressure will come. People will say, “In this modern age we should not be dependent on physically having to go somewhere”, in the same way that they blithely talk about electronic voting and so on. It will rapidly get to the point where it is not about visiting particular physical locations but about generating large numbers of electronic signatures on online petitions. Then we will see a substantial change in the relationship between Members of this House and their constituents.
	I have no problem with the idea that I should engage fully with my constituents and listen to them. In practice, we have moved subtly in that direction. Anybody who cares to remember, as I can, the debate in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq and the debate that took place last
	year on the intervention in Syria will recognise that last year more Members were responding in short order to substantial online representations, in larger numbers, from their constituents. In 2003, I got a very large number of letters, but they were actual letters, and overwhelmingly individual, not template, letters. A lot of Members felt burdened by the weight of opinion that was coming to them on the Syria vote.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman has used the phrase “representative democracy” on a number of occasions. If this is indeed a representative democracy, surely he has nothing to fear from a recall Bill. In fact, having this Bill in the voters’ locker as a big stick used lightly might ensure that it was a representative democracy as regards the two examples he has given—tuition fees, given the promises made by one of the coalition parties, and the Iraq war.

Andrew Lansley: It is not that Members have something to fear from participation in our democracy—far from it. I believe completely in the wisdom of the masses, but we have to recognise when and how that is properly to be tested in the formal sense. We are a representative democracy, and we increasingly change the character of our democracy anyway. The referendum is a participatory democratic vehicle. We have used it more, and it is likely to be with us for the future, but only in specific circumstances. That illustrates the nature of the constitutional question at the heart of the potential amendment to the Bill.
	Shifting to a recall process is not about addressing the individual behaviour of Members—it is much more likely to be used to try to influence the policies of political parties, of Members of Parliament, or of the Government. It would relate to particular individual issues, unlike a general election. As other hon. Members have said very forcefully, a general election is a vital moment in a representative democracy, because people take the whole presentation of party and candidate and consider it in the round. The recall mechanism is designed to enable the public to intervene in and, notwithstanding what the decision in a general election might have been, to impact directly on an individual decision on an individual policy issue.

Zac Goldsmith: My right hon. Friend is describing Parliament as if it were made up of hundreds of free spirits whose decisions might be corrupted by the pressure brought about by recall, but surely he realises—in fact, I know that he knows this—that the pressure applied by party hierarchies through the Whips is on a dramatically different scale from the tiny pressure that might be felt as a consequence of this remote and unlikely threat of a three-line whip that constituents might find themselves holding from time to time. There is no comparison—surely my right hon. Friend understands that. Most Members do exactly what they are told by the Whips for 99.9%—sometimes 100%—of the time.

Andrew Lansley: I am quite old fashioned: Members would have to look quite far back to find a point at which I did not vote in accordance with the Whip. I think that the last time I defied the Whip was on the question of same-sex adoption rules.
	I see part of my role as having been elected as a Conservative. A number of Members have said, perfectly reasonably, that we are primarily and overwhelmingly elected—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has accepted this—on a party rather than an individual basis. I do not see that as meaning that individual Members of Parliament should not have a conscience or be able to exercise their judgment, because they owe that to their constituents. They will have to come to a judgment on great matters of conscience that are relevant to their constituency. That was true on Iraq: I did not vote for the invasion, even though it was my party’s policy to do so. To suggest, however, that we should behave as individuals outside party discipline is nonsense, because the whole system will begin to break down if we go in that direction.
	The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was slightly the other way around. He said that we all behave in the way the Whips tell us, but this has been a more rebellious Parliament—for good or ill—than ever before. I am not sure whether that is a good basis for the argument in favour of recall, because Members clearly feel that they can respond to their conscience and their constituents without the need for a recall mechanism.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has suggested that if we took the Whips out of the process of deciding whether a Member should be suspended from this House—actually, I do not think that the Whips are part of that process— that would somehow relieve us of the impact of the Whips controlling our behaviour. The recall mechanism proposed as an alternative to this Bill, however, is a greater risk to Members. If a Member were subject to an allegation—a serious allegation, but not a criminal one—that threatened their reputation and position in the constituency, it is clear that they would then be subject to a notice of intent and at risk of a recall petition. The situation would develop rapidly and the question for their party would then be whether it supported them or not.
	The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) mentioned Ian Gibson, who accused his party of abandoning him. The most dangerous thing for a Member is to be abandoned when they are at risk of having to stand in a by-election in their constituency. If the party takes the Whip away from a Member, they would, in effect, have no chance in a by-election—unless they were in a very strong position—and they would be undermined. The power of the Whips as to whether a Member has the Whip—and, therefore, their power over that Member’s position in an election—would be unchanged by this or any other recall Bill. The power of the Whips is often exaggerated, but in so far as it exists, it would be unchanged by the recall mechanisms, whatever they might be.

Jim Cunningham: This is also a constitutional issue. We make judgments on behalf of our constituents on issues that are not in our manifestos. We also carry out manifesto commitments, but we are not delegates. I think that is where people tend to get a little confused: there is a big difference between making a judgment on behalf of constituents and being mandated as an individual delegate to represent something.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are not delegates or ciphers; we are representatives. As Members have rightly said, we owe our constituents our judgment and our conscience and we are here to represent their interests, but we should not necessarily subordinate any of that to their opinions or, still less, to some calculation of what might be their opinions.
	It is very difficult to know precisely what one’s constituents’ opinions are. For example, it was often asserted with great confidence that my constituents were against the legislation on same-sex marriage, but that was absolutely untrue. I knew that they were in favour of it. Even those who contacted me were generally in favour of it. I say this advisedly to Government Members, but some Members in the Chamber voted for it and felt that they were right to do so despite their constituents being against it. They could not have taken much comfort from the last Conservative manifesto, because the proposal was not in the manifesto as such, although it was referred to in other documents. Under the recall mechanism, in that sense they would be at risk. That brings us back to the argument made by proponents of the alternative recall mechanism, which is that it would never have come to that. In that case, we have to ask under what circumstances recall would get to such a point, and I mentioned some of those circumstances earlier.
	To sum up, first, we are delivering on the promise we made; and, secondly, we are very clear that in past cases of wrongdoing Members—either somebody, a long time ago, who was given a prison sentence or, more commonly, a period of suspension from the House—would not necessarily, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) put it, have done the honourable thing and resigned. Recently, such Members have done so, but, frankly, they were not required to do so.
	To return to an earlier point, regulatory processes in the House for managing the conduct of Members should show that we are willing, able and have mechanisms in place so that, as we promised, somebody who commits serious wrongdoing will be subject to a process that may lead to their recall and expulsion from the House at a by-election. We have seen possibilities for doing that in the past, and we would stick to such a system in future.
	Over the past couple of years or so, Ministers have tried to make the Bill as robust as possible, and we have not stopped doing so. However, there is a big gap between where we are now and a recall mechanism that is completely different constitutionally, because it would allow the public the opportunity—on individual decision-making and policy issues—to reach in to the Chamber of the House of Commons in the middle of a Parliament, and pull out a Member on the grounds that they had done something the public did not like between one general election and the next. That would undermine the general election as the critical moment for accountability, and it would undermine Members if it was abused, as inevitably most mechanisms can be abused. Constitutionally, it would take us in the direction of participatory or direct democracy, which is not the direction in which we in this Parliament want to go.
	Notwithstanding the fact that many Members will vote for the Bill on the grounds of wanting to change it, I and I hope others will vote for it, although it is
	susceptible to amendment, because we in principle—the Second Reading is about the principle—support the Bill as it is.

Mike Thornton: I have been called earlier than expected, because there seems to be a lack of Opposition Members in the Chamber, which I greatly regret.
	Interestingly, Members spoke about those with safe or marginal seats. For Lib Dems, there is of course no such thing as a safe seat. Looking back—I am fairly inexperienced in this Chamber—I must admit that 10 years ago I had absolutely no idea that I would be standing here to talk about recall, but I thought that I had better get up and speak.
	A few people have spoken to me about America, although it has not been mentioned much in this debate. Of course, America does not have by-elections. If somebody is removed, a governor or whoever appoints somebody in their place. It therefore does not expose the seat to the sort of manipulation for political purposes that might happen in this country.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke about a job description. We do not have one, but we could certainly live by a code of conduct. We may need to consider that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said that we should be honourable. He said that there is no need for the Bill because we have honour, although not among thieves. I think that it was Lord Hewart, when he was Lord Chief Justice, who coined the phrase, “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.” Perhaps the problem is that people see Members of this House as not as honourable as we are, not as hard-working as we are, and not as committed to doing what we should be doing for our constituents and the country as we are.
	When I came to the House, I was incredibly impressed by how hard everyone works and how committed they are to their constituents. There are probably a few exceptions. [Interruption.] Even the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is an honourable person who has his constituents at heart. Most of us fight for our principles, but we have to compromise to ensure that what we get done is good for the country. Sometimes we have to say, “I can’t do this, but I can do that.” We have all done that within parties and within the Government.
	Unfortunately, the Bill has serious flaws. The main flaw is that, if it goes through unamended, the public will see that we are deciding who should be kicked out and who should not. I agree with what Lord Hewart said. We must not just be honourable; we need a mechanism that allows the public to see that we are honourable. The public must have a way of initiating a recall.
	I have read the amendments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Not only would they open the process to political abuse, but they are so horrendously long-winded and complicated that the chances of succeeding in getting anyone recalled if they deserved it would be minimal. The process could be dragged out for two years, at which point the MP would be more or less useless and would probably resign anyway. It is just not a good mechanism.
	We need a decent amendment that would allow the public to bring an issue to some sort of independent body of Parliament. I am not clever enough to say at this moment how that could be done. Perhaps a judge or someone else would be able to say, “This person has breached the code of conduct.” It does not have to be anything criminal. Teachers and social workers can lose their jobs for non-criminal activity if they breach a code of conduct. We need to allow the public to point out when someone has breached a code of conduct. If a reasonable case is brought forward—not proven, but reasonable—a recall mechanism should be instituted.
	I think—believe it or not—that the 10% threshold is too high if it is demonstrated that somebody has breached the code of conduct. We need to reduce it to provide a reasonable chance that somebody who has done something wrong will be recalled. However, I do not want someone to be recalled just because somebody else feels like it. It is possible that, after my by-election, 20% of my electorate could have said, “We might be able to get rid of him and get someone else in.” I do not think that it would have been fair to have another by-election six months later.
	I put it to the House that we need a compromise between the proposals of the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the Bill, which is very weak. I will vote for the Bill, but I will do so in order that a good amendment can be tabled that makes it workable, practical and fair.

Anne-Marie Morris: The Bill is fundamental to us being a democracy, and I am proud that the Government have introduced it. We treasure democracy, and I believe we will continue to treasure it as the years progress. Being a Member of Parliament is an enormous privilege, and as a first-time MP in 2010 I have come to value that. It is a privilege because it is the only role I can think of that is based on trust—trust between the electorate and the individual. If my constituents do not trust me, or if I do not trust them, it simply does not work, and the Bill seeks to address where that trust breaks down.
	I agree that there must be a real cause for recall, but I trust the people to work out whether or not there is that just cause. My problem with the Bill as currently drafted is that the decision is very much in the hands of us as MPs—after amendment of the original Bill, that decision has gone to the Standards Committee. Although the proposed amendments would introduce lay members to the Committee, I am far from convinced that the British people would accept and trust that. However the decision is made, I believe that it cannot be made by Members of Parliament.
	I support my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in what he is trying to achieve, and he put it extraordinarily well. However, the issue of the trigger has been a continuing challenge, and the Government’s proposals, with just two triggers, have been challenged by many in the House. We are trying to find a way of giving people a say in the recall of their MPs, and that cannot be as narrow as the Bill sets out.
	I entirely understand concerns that there may be abuse, but we must find a way forward. That is why, working with my hon. Friend and his committee, I suggested that one way of trying to ensure that the
	public know exactly what this is about, and are not filibustered by politicians, was to make it an obligation for whoever is requesting the recall to go on the record. That individual must be able and willing to come forward and put their name on the record, and someone who is a political mischief maker and whose name is well known will therefore give a message to the public about exactly what is behind that process of recall. Having somebody on the record whose name is made public is important, and I fought long and hard in the committee, where we discussed a number of amendments, to ensure that that was included.
	The second point I fought hard for was the need for a reason. For all the reasons that the triggers are too narrow, there must none the less be something that sets out clearly what lies behind the recall and is known to the public. Not only must those reasons be set out clearly in the document, they must also be present, along with the name of the sponsor, in every polling station, so that anybody voting in the referendum knows who is proposing the recall and the reason for it.
	Even that is not enough, however, and to me it is important that the Member of Parliament has a right of reply. That is absent from the Bill. It is mission critical for an MP to have that right of reply, and that that is on the table with the name of the sponsor and the reasons given for the recall so that Members of the public are fully informed about the decision they are making. No system is perfect, but I believe that that system is fairer and more reasonable, and will give confidence to the British people that we are honourable: that we stand by our word, we stand by our reputation and we stand by what we say and do.

Sammy Wilson: The very fact that the hon. Lady has outlined so many safeguards is an indication that she knows the process would be open to abuse, and that people would wish to abuse it. Her first suggestion is for a name to be on the front of the petition or whatever so we know who is sponsoring it, but surely any organisation would get an unknown and innocuous supporter to put their name to it, just as happens with judicial reviews in Northern Ireland on planning applications and so on, where the real person behind them is not known?

Anne-Marie Morris: I would love to think that we lived in a world where we were all saints and there were no sinners. Clearly, there will be individuals who might well try to abuse the system. However, there is no system, whether it is the system my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park puts forward or the Government system, that is completely proof from any abuse. I take issue with the challenge from the hon. Gentleman on the name of the sponsor. I do not believe that the British people are sufficiently misguided not to look at the name. When they look at Mr Nobody, which I think is what he is suggesting, they will say, “Hold on a minute. Mr Nobody doesn’t generally get interested in these sorts of things,” and realise there is a stitch-up. I understand his concern, but we live in the real world. We do not live in a world of saints, but fortunately we do our best to deal with the sinners.
	As part of the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend, what I propose will provide the comfort that I know a number of MPs want. At the end of the day, however, if we do not accept that we are here because of the trust of our constituents, and if we do not recognise
	that there has to be that mutual trust and respect, we have a problem. Indeed, we know we have a problem because right now people remember us for the expenses scandal. It really does not matter whether we were here at the time, we still have that black mark. We have to win that trust back and this is a very powerful way of doing it.

William McCrea: If we want to deal with an abuse of democracy and win trust back, does the hon. Lady realise that it does not help when this House pays hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to a political party in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, for not coming here to represent their constituents?

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. That is something close to his heart and he understands its ramifications. This is a matter of where angels fear to tread. I do not think that this is an issue I am brave enough to comment on. Indeed, I think I would be wise not to, but I thank him for his comments.

Tessa Munt: I wonder whether one might suggest that the lack of a job description is one of the things that confuses the electorate, because it is not entirely clear what MPs do. I accept that MPs interpret their job in a particular way, but if one had some way of recalling MPs for what might be described as a gross dereliction of duty that would at least give some faith to the public. The public and those who might engage in a by-election process should be able to judge that. That, at least, could be deemed as a correct or incorrect charge.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, but it is not quite as simple as giving us a job description. There is something peculiar and special about being a Member of Parliament. We are not employers, we are not employees and we are not self-employed. We do not fall within the framework of almost any piece of standard legislation. She is right that a job description might be a good plan, but that is very much the first point. There is so much more that would have to be changed. The challenge would be, as she rightly says, that we all do the job in a number of different ways. It would be very difficult, and perhaps constrain us from doing a good job, to say that the job had to be done in this way or that way.

Tessa Munt: I am not suggesting there should be a job description, but in a representative democracy, people should understand exactly what they expect of their MPs. We all have to deal with the post, hold our surgeries and do various other things that have come to be expected of MPs. For instance, it might well be that constituents have a reasonable expectation that MPs should at least turn up in this place.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Lady makes another good point about the challenge, which the Government have faced, of trying to define triggers, rather than relying on the people to look at why and by whom an individual is being recalled. She identifies the problem, but I am not convinced her solution would be better, safer or less liable to abuse than mine: the name of the sponsor, a clear statement of the reason for a recall and the opportunity for the Member to respond.
	We have debated whether the percentage is too high or too low. It is extraordinarily hard to know what the correct figure should be. It will depend partly on whether we adopt the truly democratic approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, which I support, or the—in my view—more restrained democratic approach proposed by the Government. I think that my hon. Friend is right to opt for a higher percentage. I hear the argument about it being too high, but on reflection I am confident it is the right figure. We are concerned in this House, this goldfish bowl, about how the British people see us, and some are worried that others with adverse views might endeavour to misuse the Bill. I am the first to agree that every country is different—we are very different from the US—but why is it that in countries with a truly democratic recall process there have not been the catastrophic events feared by some in the House?
	To return to where I started, this is a matter of trust. We spend a lot of time with our constituents. Every year, I deal with 6,000 new cases—not simply complaints, but real issues of housing, benefits, health and so on—and in dealing with so many people, one gets under the skin of a community and people come to understand and trust their MP. It is something we have to earn—it is not a right—but if we can earn it, the sort of recall process suggested by my hon. Friend can work.

Stewart Jackson: On the distinction between a legitimate issue of criminal misbehaviour and sincere, well-meaning beliefs, my hon. Friend still has not convinced me that people such as Sydney Silverman, Leo Abse, who campaigned on homosexual law reform, and others would not have been subject to recall and lost those ballots.

Anne-Marie Morris: We can speculate about what might have happened, but it is not as simple as whether something is a criminal offence. So many things, situations and reasons could serve as a basis for recall that if we tried to over-categorise them, we could get into a legislative nightmare trying to provide for every single event. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that even he could provide a perfect definition giving the complete protection he would like, and that brings me back to trust. Trust is something very special. Married couples need it: there are no rules or regulations for marriage; it works if there is trust and if both people want to see it through. For that reason, I think this can work.
	I commend the Government for having the courage to introduce the Bill. It is very important, but I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park to try to amend it to include some of the proposals I have made, which I hope Members will accept.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill and I congratulate them. It has been a long time coming, but it is welcome that we shall at last have a Bill on the statute book that brings about recall in some shape or form.
	We need to recognise that the cornerstone of the democratic process is that power resides with the people—the electorate—but it is far too easy to ignore how
	disillusioned they are. We have heard Members say that this will pass, but it will not do so without more positive action, and a recall Bill modelled on the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) will go some way towards providing that.
	The challenge, of course, is how we achieve the balance between the very real demands of the electorate and the need to protect Members from vexatious attempts to undermine and remove them. We must not underestimate how disillusioned the public are with politicians and the whole political process.
	Earlier in the debate, concerns were raised about Members who support unfashionable causes. Change is painfully slow in this country; we can all sympathise with that, as we all have our pet schemes and find it incredibly frustrating that we cannot put them into action. Despite those frustrations, we must recognise that one of the great strengths of our country is stability—change certainly does not come quickly.
	If we are to restore public confidence, the first thing we must do is genuinely recognise the level of public distrust of and cynicism about we politicians. We must do more than pay lip service to dealing with it; we need to show by our actions that we will do something about it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) drew attention to some uncomfortable home truths, talking about safe seats and how the low level of party membership can result in the selection process in such seats being limited to 100 people or fewer who, in effect, elect the Member of Parliament. That could of course be simply resolved by thousands of people queuing up to join the political parties that are most in tune with their views, but we have all had very limited success in increasing our party membership and it will not happen in the near future.
	The message should go out that democracy is a two-way process. Those of us who put ourselves forward for election are not the norm. Most of us try very hard to engage with those we represent, and it is because so many are so disenchanted with the whole process that they simply refuse to become involved. I recognise that the opportunity to give a sitting Member a kicking might tempt some to join in, but although the thresholds being proposed might be sufficient, I would probably err on the side of slightly upping the thresholds proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park to offer additional protection.
	I mentioned unfashionable causes, and mention has been made of abortion, capital punishment and the like. Of course, unpopular policy decisions are taken: the closure of a local hospital, for example, is always going to be contentious, but what if I or any other Member thought that the proposals were in the best interests of those we represent? Should we be on the side of the health trust, which has vast resources and an army of lawyers and accountants to look after it, or should we be there to articulate the genuine concerns of those we represent, by engaging meaningfully and trying to put forward a balanced view?

Chris Bryant: Members have campaigned on issues such as abortion or ending the criminalisation of homosexuality, but is it not an irony that those causes
	were advanced in previous eras in private Members’ Bills? They were given time by the whole House, and I think the public valued that private Members’ process, when no party Whip was exercised, which is completely different from today.

Martin Vickers: I cannot disagree; private Members’ Bills have indeed played a very important role over the years.
	On the subject of articulating the concerns of the local community, I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—I served as his constituency agent for many years—always used to speak of his role as being “a megaphone” for the local community. We should take that seriously; it applies to many issues.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park highlighted Members’ failures: failure to engage with constituents, long absences from Westminster and switching parties without by-elections, to which I might mischievously add, voting in support of handing the sovereignty of this place to a foreign institution. Having an in-House solution, as is being proposed, is no longer acceptable to the public. Whatever the outcome of the Bill’s legislative journey, a recall Bill will reach the statute book, which is progress.
	Let me explain the difference between the recall process and waiting for the next general election in order to get rid of a Member. As a previous speaker mentioned, general elections tend to focus on whom we want to govern the country, while the recall process and subsequent by-election would be much more focused on the individual and his failings or, indeed, his strengths.
	I shall support most of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. Whatever the outcome, we shall at least be able to go back to our constituencies and rightly proclaim that we have made some progress on recall, even though more progress is needed.

George Young: I want to make a brief intervention in this debate, because so far no one who has sat on the Standards and Privileges Committee has spoken. During the course of the debate, a number of assertions have been made about how that Committee operates. We heard from one hon. Member that there was risk of a tabloid campaign leading to the upholding of a complaint against a Member who would then find himself confronted with a 10% petition in his constituency. Another Member asserted exactly the opposite—that the Standards and Privileges Committee was a cosy clique that protected other Members from justice. Let me therefore explain the Committee’s role, the environment in which it operates and the very real constraints on what its members can do.
	First, there is an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That commissioner, who is independent of Members, investigates the complaint and produces a report saying whether or not the complaint should be upheld. Members of Parliament and members of the Committee have no role whatever in the production of that report, which is always published. Members are then free, if they so wish, to go against the finding of the independent commissioner, but they of course need
	very good reasons so to do. They are going to have to stand up in public; they cannot simply say that they do not uphold the complaint, as reasons have to be produced.
	One quite recent change is the introduction of lay members on that Committee. It is true that the lay members do not have a vote, but they have something much more effective—a veto. If they disagree with the elected members of the Standards and Privileges Committee, that disagreement is put into the public domain. Any attempt by Members of Parliament to shield a colleague from a wholly justified complaint would be shot to bits by the lay members publishing a report in disagreement. Further changes are that the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee cannot come from the Government Benches. When I chaired the Committee, there was no Government majority on it. The notion that the members of this Committee, in the words of one Member, “chase the Whips’ bauble” is a gross injustice to the independently minded MPs who serve on the Committee. I think they would deeply resent some of the allegations made against them.

Bill Wiggin: As a former Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and a former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend is uniquely positioned to confirm whether, should a Member challenge the findings of the Committee, the Government would whip the party against that Member.

George Young: The debates about Standards and Privileges Committee reports that take place on the Floor of the House are unwhipped business, and the Whips have no role to play in them. Indeed, I have been in the House when it has overturned one of the Committee’s recommendations. That is another safeguard that has been overlooked. The Standards and Privileges Committee does not have the last word; its recommendations go to the Floor of the House. The notion that Members of this House would validate a kangaroo court of Members upstairs is an injustice to them, for they would not tolerate it.
	Having said that, I should add that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that have been made today. For example, we could consider increasing the role of the Committee’s lay members, and consider whether it would be procedurally possible, in certain cases, to ask them to conduct the adjudication and publish the report. They could be the only voice in such cases if that found favour.
	I think that one dilemma was put well by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who asked “Is it cause, or is it conduct?” In other words, are we going to hold people to account for their conduct, or for their cause? Our manifesto made it absolutely clear that recall would be linked to misconduct.
	I see all sorts of risks in going down the path advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), although I commend the way in which he opened the Back-Bench debate. For example, in this country MPs are also Ministers. Some unpopular decisions are being made at the moment: HS2, for instance, is controversial, although it has been validated by the House. Some Transport Ministers are in marginal seats, and the HS2 campaign is, I believe, fairly well resourced. It would not be impossible to achieve the 5% trigger in the constituency of a Transport Minister and to destabilise
	that Minister, who would be doing the work of the House. Other Ministers may be involved in such issues as fracking, planning or tuition fees. I envisage a real risk that Ministers who are doing the business of their party and the business of the Government will be destabilised by this mechanism.
	I think that what the House ought to do on this occasion is honour the commitments that the three main parties made in their manifestos, and link recall to misconduct. By all means let Members develop the debate and consider the options that have been ventilated by those who support the amendments, but those are, perhaps, for another Parliament. I do not think that we should divert from the commitments that nearly all of us made at the last election. I think that we should get the Bill on the statute book and then, at a later date, explore some of the other amendments that have been proposed.

David Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are in danger of becoming obsessed with the process leading to a conviction without first determining the nature of the crime involved?

George Young: I think that the process should be linked, if not to a conviction, to serious misconduct. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two triggers in the Bill. One is a custodial sentence of less than a year, and the other is a finding by the Standards and Privileges Committee that a serious misdemeanour has been committed. That must be validated by the House, and I think that it ought to be supported by the lay members. However, I am clear in my own mind that there is a distinction between cause and conduct. We heard from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) about the case of Lena Jeger, and there are others who would have been caught if the Bill had been extended in the way that some have suggested.
	I think that, on this occasion, we should stick to our commitment, and get the Bill on to the statute book.

Stewart Jackson: Let me declare an interest at the outset, as an adjunct associate professor of British politics at Richmond university. If my comments are somewhat ponderous, that will probably be the reason.
	On 17 October 1834, crowds gathered on the south bank of the Thames to cheer on the conflagration that consumed the Palace of Westminster. They were cheering at the prospect of several MPs dying in the hideous blaze that had begun when the tally sticks were burnt in the oven below the House of Lords as a result of the less than diligent way in which the men were performing their duties. They had gone off to dinner, and to the pub. The point is that there have never been any halcyon days in which Members of Parliament enjoyed great popularity. They have never lived in the land of milk and honey, and to suggest otherwise would be quite wrong.
	My concern about the Bill and the amendments being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is that they are predicated on myths. As my right hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) and for North
	West Hampshire (Sir George Young) have said, the merit of the Government’s proposals is that they make a clear distinction between malfeasance, criminal conduct and misbehaviour and they address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about scapegoating people with deeply unpopular or unfashionable views. Examples could include Willie Hamilton, an ardent republican, or Sydney Silverman, with his long-standing commitment to the abolition of capital punishment, or Leo Abse, who was in favour of homosexual law reform. They were all decent, honourable Members of this House, but they might have fallen foul of a recall process instigated by powerful vested interests in their constituencies and across the country.
	Many myths have been flying around, one of which is that turnout has been falling. It has not. Over the past two general elections, it has gone up to 65% from the low point of 59% in 2001. I was corrected by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) when I mentioned Garry Allingham, an obscure Labour MP who was, I think, a journalist for the Daily Mirror. He was as obscure then as he is now. He was expelled from the House of Commons in 1947 for saying that MPs were unable to vote properly because they were drunk. He was called to the Bar of the House and expelled. So disciplinary procedures were in place then, and a precedent was set, but not on the basis of criminal activity. The bar was set much lower, and he was expelled on the ground that he had upset the sensibilities of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	I have grave concerns about the efficacy of introducing primary legislation at the end of this Parliament, because to do so fails to take on board the fact that there has been a significant amount of incremental reform, both administrative and legislative, in this Parliament. For example, we now elect the Chairmen of Select Committees and, from within party caucuses, Select Committee members. The power of the Whips is now much less acute than it was even five years ago. And of course we elect the Speaker.
	The idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park that 100% of MPs vote 100% of the time is palpable nonsense. I am a walking, talking example of that fact, and the reason I behave in that way is that I was never consulted over the coalition agreement. I was elected as a Member of Parliament on the basis of the Conservative manifesto. When my principles coincide with those expressed in the coalition agreement, I will vote with the Government; otherwise, I will not. We now have something akin to a Regency Parliament, in that we have collections of different interests, and Members voting as they see fit. The idea that we are all ciphers and automata who toe the party line is complete nonsense. We have also made reforms to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	I believe that this legislation would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. It would undermine the sacred bond of faith and trust that exists at election time between Members of Parliament and their electors, and it is nonsense to suggest that that would not be a problem. I simply think that we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The reason that people feel disempowered and alienated from politics is that they do not feel that politics matters to their lives, because
	decisions are taken by supranational bodies such as the European Union, by obscure far-away bodies including quangos such as the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, and by big local government, which is seen as a self-perpetuating elitist cartel. That is the reason; it is not because they think all MPs are liars, cheats and thieves, although a lot of them do. Actually, that is not even as simple as one might think, because they think everyone else’s MP is a liar and a cheat and a thief, but theirs is a charming young man who came and opened their summer fete last year, and who is trustworthy, decent and a great person.

Nick de Bois: Not that young.

Stewart Jackson: Yes, not that young in some cases.
	I also take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda—who is not in his place at the moment but who is a gifted historian whose book on the history of Parliament I have read—that a party caucus chooses a Member of Parliament, not the electorate. That is a very arrogant and disdainful attitude. An election is like a jigsaw puzzle, and every single piece is a part of that puzzle, and when it all comes together that is the beauty of democracy. That is not for party caucuses.
	Bad’uns have always existed in politics, whether it is Sir Charles Dilke, Horatio Bottomley or many other Members of Parliament. Bad’uns get elected as well as get thrown out. We only have to think of someone such as Oswald Mosley in the 1930s. Essentially, I believe in the wisdom of crowds. I believe in the sanctity of that bond between the electors at the general election. That is the recall process: an election where there is perfect competition and perfect knowledge by the voters to understand the record, vision, policies and principles of a prospective Member of Parliament.

David Burrowes: I recognise my hon. Friend’s wisdom and understanding of political history, but, on history, may I take him back to February 2008, when he joined me and 26 other hon. Friends, part of the 2010 intake, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph? The letter stated that recall
	“would increase MPs’ accountability, address some of the frustration felt by a disenchanted public and help restore trust in our democratic institutions.”
	If that was right in 2008 and right in our 2010 manifesto, why is it not right now?

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is such a decent and generous gentleman that he did give me notice yesterday that he would ambush me in this way, and I thank him and have an enormous amount of respect for him, but I have changed my mind, as I have changed my mind on many things over the years. I have changed my mind on House of Lords reform, for instance. I think it ludicrous that we have an upper Chamber that is the largest unelected body outside the people’s congress of China, and believe that should be reformed, even though I am a Conservative, of course. So I have changed my mind on that.
	I have looked at the details of the Government’s Bill and I accept that it does make that distinction between moral conscience issues and policy issues and real issues of misdemeanours and criminal conduct.

Graham Stuart: I suppose the worst case scenario with the Government’s Bill is when somebody does something that the public regard as pretty serious, yet which neither leads to a custodial sentence, as many noxious things do not, nor to a suspension of a sufficient number of days, and we are left with the public feeling cheated by a recall Bill that did not deliver what they would have expected.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I come back to a central issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about the split between the Executive and the legislature. I believe one of the lessons of the expenses disaster was the failure of the Executive properly to embrace the Freedom of Information Act, openness and transparency at an early stage across all parties, and what we see here is the sins of the Executive being visited on the legislature and Back Benchers.
	The concept of the Executive facing up to their own responsibility is long past, with Peter Carrington’s resignation as a result of the Falklands invasion and, for those who can remember their constitutional history, Crichel Down in 1954, when the Minister of Agriculture, who I believe was Sir Thomas Dugdale, resigned as a result of a piece of land, the sale of which was mishandled by his Department. Ministerial responsibility for the Executive is much less in fashion than it ever used to be. What we are being asked to do today, particularly with the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), is take to the nth degree the accountability of the individual Back Bencher, and therefore I do think there is an asymmetrical approach. The merit of the Government’s Bill is that at least it adequately formalises the sanctions around criminal misbehaviour and malfeasance, taking into account the reforms, openness and transparency that have been in place since the expenses crisis.

Nick de Bois: Is my hon. Friend not highlighting the case for the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)? He referred to Ministers being accountable for their actions in the past. The amendments introduce accountability to the people, whereas the Bill talks about accountability to the Houses of Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: Again, I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend, but my big concern about the amendments is mission creep. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) made the point that it seems peculiar to establish in legislation, by the incorporation of those amendments, a system that we expressly do not want to be enacted. It is like saying, “We are just putting it in place just in case circumstances arise where we have to use”—

Zac Goldsmith: I think that everyone here who believes in the recall of MPs would like to see a system that is not used a great deal. None of us wants to see MPs slung out of this place on a daily basis. The idea is that the threshold is low enough that it is possible to achieve in extreme circumstances but high enough that it cannot be abused in the way that many Members in this House fear it might be.

Stewart Jackson: I understand. Let me put it on the record that my hon. Friend is a decent, diligent and caring Member of Parliament who wants to see this House improved and its reputation enhanced. I have never resiled from taking that view and his motives are not ignoble. None the less, we may have mission creep, whereby powerful groups, elites and well-funded individuals and organisations may use those particular mechanisms to oust Members with whom they bitterly disagree. Again, I will call on examples from the past. I ask the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) whether his illustrious predecessor, John Hume, the Member for Londonderry, would have taken the same very brave and principled decisions against people in his own community and the other community in Northern Ireland were he subject to the vagaries and the vicissitudes of a recall process? That is an open question.

Mark Durkan: I worked for John Hume as his Westminster assistant for many years, and the truth is that he would have taken the same decisions. Nothing would have dissuaded him from his course. He came under great pressure not from his constituency but from the media and all sorts of establishments, and he stuck that course with the support of the people of Derry come what may.

Stewart Jackson: I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge. Of course John Hume was greatly liked and respected in this House, but that does not mean that vexatious, pernicious and dangerous elements would not have sought to remove him using a recall process. None of us knows the answer.
	In conclusion, the Government’s Bill is not perfect, but something that most people could possibly support. I will argue passionately and cogently against the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, although I accept his bona fides in wanting to improve this Bill. We are pushing at an open door here. There is the danger that we will open a Pandora’s box. American congressmen can never really look at the big picture, because as soon as they are elected they are fundraising every two years. They can never really look at the strategic overview for their country, district, county or state. I suspect that something like that might happen with the recall process here in that we will be constantly looking over our shoulders at the mad, bad and dangerous to know, the pernicious and vexatious, which is why I will abstain on Second Reading and argue vigorously against the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park.

Conor Burns: It is a pleasure to be participating in the latter stages of this important debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). We are distinguished members of a small group of resigned Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the former Northern Ireland Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). My hon. Friend might find that some of his views are echoed in my speech.
	It was a pleasure to listen to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the former Chief Whip and Patronage
	Secretary. His knowledgeable contribution showed how much he will be missed from the House after the general election.
	Today is Parliament talking about Parliament. As I look up towards those who look down on us—literally and metaphorically—I am conscious that I do not see many of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who has just left the Chamber, referred to our being in a goldfish bowl, but not many people are looking into this particular goldfish bowl. When we vote on bombing Syria or gassing badgers, this place is surrounded by members of the public wishing to tell us their views. We find that our inboxes are full of e-mails and our correspondence rates go up, but that has not happened in the build-up to today’s debate.
	I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) back in his place below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches. He reminded us of the case of Winchester in 1997, which is probably one of the only times we have seen what a recall looks like. I declare an interest in that case—you may well remember it, Mr Speaker—because the Conservative candidate in that Winchester by-election, who had been the Member for Winchester until the 1997 general election, was one Gerry Malone, who once held the very high office of deputy chairman of the Conservative party responsible for youth. It was Mr Malone who showed his commitment to democracy by overturning the results of the Conservative student elections in which I was elected as national chairman and by appointing my successor. It was ironic that he called that a consultation exercise, as he went on to find out what being on the wrong end of a consultation exercise felt like some years later in Winchester.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not in the Chamber. He made an eloquent but characteristically depressing speech. A young man from the sixth form of my old school, St Columba’s in St Albans, is doing some work experience in my office this week. He told me with great pride that he had spotted an error in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, because there had been a reference to the Great Reform Act of 1830, when it was, of course, of 1832. I am pleased that the standards of my old history teacher, Mr Byrne, are alive and well in St Columba’s today.
	Several hon. Members have talked about trust, which goes to the heart of this matter, and the expenses scandal. I viewed that scandal as a member of the public. Like many Members who were first elected at the 2010 general election, I looked on in despair at what happened during the expenses scandal. I understand that many in the House who lived through that experience are so scarred by it that they do not feel able to stand up and say that it was a small minority of people who did wrong and that those people were rightly punished. When a new regime is in place, it is wrong that this House continues to sit back and take the flak for something from the past. Members on both sides of the House who were first elected in 2010 believe that we have a mandate to restore the bond of trust between this place and the electorate, and we have tried to achieve that through everything that we have done and said in our constituencies.
	We hear that we are all the same and that the political class is useless, but all hon. Members must be visited in their surgeries almost every week by people in abject despair, and because of the two letters after our names, we are able to escalate their problems into the hands of people who can sort them out. If we lose faith in this place, we will deserve to fall into public contempt. I assert that it is time for this Chamber to stand up again and bravely say to the British people, “This is the cockpit of parliamentary democracy in Britain. This is where we resolve issues by debate and argument. This is a place that is populated by people who are motivated by generous, good and decent instincts to do their best for their country and their constituency.”
	However, I assert that one of the reasons people have disengaged from politics is that, as the late Tony Benn once said, this place has swapped power for status. Members of Parliament are asked to go on television, but they are afraid to exercise the powers vested in them by their constituents in the Lobby and to stand up powerfully to the Executive. We have shuffled power off to the European Union and to unelected quangos, to people we do not elect and cannot remove. It is vital that in the years ahead this House confidently starts to bring some of those powers back to this place and to exercise them in the name of our constituents who sent us here.
	I thought that the comment that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made about Enoch Powell having a good majority in his South Down seat because he tipped his hat to the local electorate was a novel one. I am not sure that rushing out, buying trilbies and tipping them to our local electorates is the full solution to the problem we find ourselves in. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Edmund Burke, and I am delighted that the statue of that great conservative philosopher has now been liberated from behind the bookshop in St Stephen’s Hall, so that it can be seen as an inspiration to us all. It was Burke who said, in his famous speech to his electors in Bristol, that we as Members of Parliament owe our constituents our judgment above all else, and that we betray them and do not serve them if we sacrifice our judgment to their opinion. It is absolutely right that during the course of a Parliament we in this place will vote for unpopular measures. I remember a few years ago—I have told this story before—telling Lady Thatcher that the Conservative party was 9% behind in the polls. She asked when the next election was, and I said that it was three and a half years away. She said, “That’s not far enough behind at this stage.”
	It is up to us as politicians to take decisions, confident in our judgments and confident that over time they will be shown to be right. I will use the recent example of same-sex marriage. I agonised over how to vote on that, as a practising Catholic and as an openly gay man. If I had listened to those in my constituency whose voice was loudest, whose e-mail send button was pushed the most often, I would have gone into the Lobby to vote against that legislation, but I decided that I owed them my judgment. Although I might not have earned their support on that, I am certain from their reaction afterwards and from the line I took with them that I have earned their respect. That, to me, is a much more important aspiration than to be liked.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a powerful speech. On his point about gay marriage, would he have made a different
	decision, or felt obliged to vote differently, had there been in place a recall regime of the sort that I and colleagues are proposing?

Conor Burns: That is a very good question. Some hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in this Chamber have known me for more than 20 years, yourself included, Mr Speaker, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, and they know that I have consistently put my principles ahead of promotion. I would not have sacrificed the national chairmanship of the Conservative students to oppose Maastricht in 1993, and I certainly would not go through the Lobby in this place for something I fundamentally did not believe in—it is a liberating experience when one decides that.

Zac Goldsmith: I would be interested to know why my hon. Friend thinks that others might do that as a consequence of recall. What is it about this House that makes him feel that the existence of recall would enfeeble Parliament, as opposed to strengthening it in the way he has just demonstrated?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend has given me an excellent introduction to how I want to end my speech. I will support the Government’s Bill, which was ably introduced today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—not Angry of Tunbridge Wells, but moderate and very sensible of Tunbridge Wells. I look forward to the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in Committee, because I think that they need to be probed.
	When I resigned from my role as PPS in order to vote against a Bill which I fundamentally opposed and believed would damage Parliament, I did so in the knowledge that that would lead to a sacrifice. As a friend of mine said at the time, “You’re a genius: you’ve established yourself as a person of principle over an issue that nobody really cares about.” I suppose that there was an element of truth in that. What I want to know—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made this point absolutely brilliantly—is how the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park would enable the separation of sanction on personal probity issues from people taking policy positions. In this House a Member must be able to take a policy decision, a difference of philosophical understanding on an issue, and be confident that they will be judged on that over time at the next general election. Issues of personal conduct are completely separate. If my hon. Friend can convince me and others that we can separate policy and probity, we will be open-minded in how we vote.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches, none more so than that just given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns).
	I have supported the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in bringing forward a vision of a recall controlled by the public, not controlled, as it might be perceived, by Whips or by the Standards Committee, however well constituted. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) was telling. The question
	is this: is it possible to allow the public to trigger recall for wrongdoing without that being abused so that it strays into matters of conscience or towards constraining the public from deciding what is or is not wrongdoing? The Bill sets the offence at a level that leads to a custodial sentence or, in the context of this House, to a very long and severe sanction by the Standards Committee. Earlier, I posed the question of whether the public would feel cheated when somebody did something that they felt was dreadful but that, in the view of the Committee and the processes of this House, did not lead to a suspension of sufficient time to allow them to express themselves on the subject. That is at the heart of the matter, and that is what we are agonising over.
	We have heard excellent speeches from, for instance, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who set the issue in the Northern Ireland context. That is a good context in which to question how communities that are sometimes severely divided might seek to use the recall mechanism. Could it be misused in a way that undermines people in doing what they should do, which is to act in line with their conscience? It is worth noting that the hon. Gentleman, for his part, felt that he could trust the public, and felt that his predecessor would have been able to rely on his public even as he was doing things that they would not have agreed with, because they respected how and why he was doing them.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the conditions that have been attached to the recall mechanism as regards the thresholds that have to be met mean, to some extent, that those who are supporting the amendments do not trust the public because they believe that they need to put in a lot of safeguards to ensure that the public do not abuse the system?

Graham Stuart: That is a fair point. However, the public are not one thing, are they? The public are made up of a lot of individuals, and therefore one has to allow a certain collection of them to come together before starting to suggest that a recall reflects a wider public opinion. Otherwise we stand the chance of very small numbers of people being able to trigger it.

Mark Durkan: The thresholds that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks about would be in the hands of the public. The 5% premise petition, the 20% test petition, and then the referendum are all in the hands of the public.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why, although I will reflect on what I have heard today—I am less sure than I was about supporting the amendments —my opinion is still that we should trust the public. We want the public to trust us, and we need to trust them. However, we need to ensure that we do not allow a tiny minority of the public to use recall in a way that most people, even in the area concerned, regard as untoward and unreasonable, simply because it is there and they feel they can use it. If that small minority are feeling powerless and think that their voice is not being heard, they will pick up whatever instrument is to hand and seek to use it to propagate their case, which they no doubt feel strongly about. That balance is what we are agonising about today.
	I try to look at this from the perspective of the public outside. They will wonder why we are putting so many barriers in the way of their deciding to exercise a right of recall and remove people from this place. As Chair of the Education Committee, I am reminded that so many teachers, or certainly the teaching unions, appear to go to such lengths to protect the worst-performing teachers in the system even though, in every case, the teacher who is idle, has low standards or fails their pupils undermines morale in the staff room and all the hard work of most teachers in the school, and those elsewhere who do so much to prioritise teachers. However, standing here in this Chamber, I guess I can recognise the sense of, “If they come for one, they may come for all.” A certain paranoia runs through us.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a strong speech. I think that the answer to his reasonable question as to why some of us are challenging the received wisdom is that, to the best of my knowledge, we have not heard an example of a Member—someone who makes laws in this House—who is a criminal who has not been subject either to disciplinary proceedings or to a criminal sanction in the past 10 to 20 years. I have not heard any such example.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend made a powerful speech. At the heart of the issue is whether the public, with no prior wrongdoing having been proved, can be trusted to use this power without it being abused in order to challenge Members on matters of conscience. I do not often speak up for the Liberal Democrats, but in this Parliament our coalition partners took an unpopular decision on tuition fees as part of a coalition agreement that they thought was in the national interest. Members representing university towns may have taken that decision even though they stood on that manifesto pledge. Following this debate, I am going to have to wrestle with the idea of whether I am confident that the proposed process would not have been used to turf out those MPs for doing what they thought was right. It would be terrible if the fear of recall were to influence not how Members treat their constituents or work on their behalf, but how they vote. That goes to the heart of the debate.

Zac Goldsmith: None of the Lib Dem Members with whom I have spoken believe they would have been recalled on the back of the tuition fee debacle. If recall had been possible, it is more likely that they would have thought twice about pledging such unrealistic and undeliverable things before an election. Under such a regime, Members would have to think much more carefully about the promises they make.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a subtle and important point, which takes me back to the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about US Congressmen always looking over their shoulders because they are elected to serve only two-year terms. It is not entirely a bad thing, however, that MPs are always looking over our shoulders to ensure that we communicate to our constituents why we are doing what we are doing and why we have made certain promises and voted in certain ways.
	I do not know whether this has already been mentioned, but I accept that we are taking a risk. If we give the public the right of recall without any prior wrongdoing having been proved, we do not know how it will be used or what the pressures—political or otherwise—that may occur in coming years will do. I suggest, therefore, that this process is a perfect candidate for a sunset clause, whereby it would be trialled for a five-year Parliament. It might be said that after giving the public the right of recall, there is no way this House would ever have the courage to take it back from them. I suggest, however, that if that right ends up being used not for wrongdoing, but to challenge Members on how they vote, this House should then have the courage to do something about it.
	It is not just proven wrongdoing that is of a criminal character or that is so severe that a Member is suspended for 21 days that upsets the public. If Members look at the data that WriteToThem, which is part of the TheyWorkForYou stable of internet tools, used to produce its league table, they will see that an awful lot of colleagues from all parties appeared not to respond to constituents: they did not write back to or take care of them. It is up to the electorate to decide whether they are being properly served by a Member of Parliament. That is at the heart of the issue for those of us who wish to give the public that right, and we hope, albeit in the spirit of optimism, that it will be used in the right way.

Diane Abbott: I support the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not about whether we trust the public, but about the fact that for the past 50 years brave Members of Parliament have had to take positions that were in advance of public opinion on social issues such as homosexuality, hanging and race relations, for which they were later vindicated?

Graham Stuart: I take that point on board. For the entire period during which I have been involved with the Conservative party, I have for ever been hearing how old, out of touch and ludicrously right wing many of its members are. It was said that they would never select anyone to stand for Parliament who did not accord with their views. It turns out that whatever their views—in times past, if they had very strong views on capital punishment, they may have said in advance that they would only choose a candidate who believed in capital punishment—they eventually selected someone completely different, because they respected that person and wanted to back them. I put it to the hon. Lady that I am not sure that the many people who have been mentioned today would be disowned by their constituents for taking brave and unpopular decisions. They are quite likely to be backed in their local area, but I recognise that we are taking a risk, which is why I suggested a sunset clause.

Kevan Jones: That may possibly be the case. However, if a very well-financed individual or organisation campaigned against a Member on subjects such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Member would have to go through the recall process. Even if the MP were re-elected, they would have had to spend all their time on that. I am sure a lot of people would be put off from raising principled issues that have changed life in this country for the better.

Graham Stuart: The argument against the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park is that powerful interests would come along and act. It always strikes me that the vulnerability of British politics to money is tremendous; yet I suggest that the cases in which it is abused are remarkably few and far between, notwithstanding the righteous efforts of the hon. Gentleman to highlight those he comes across. I simply ask him why we should not give this a chance for a Parliament. If the public in a local area was of the opinion that there had been an abuse, people would be able to divine who was behind such an attempt and see through what was behind it, even if the person named as bringing it forward was a front person. Time will tell: we perhaps need to give it a chance to find out whether that is true or not.

Jeremy Corbyn: I support the principles behind the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that over the years there have been systematic intense media campaigns against Members of the House—Tam Dalyell, Tony Benn and others—as can be seen just from reading the newspaper headlines of the time. It is quite conceivable that a media campaign with a huge amount of money behind it could succeed in getting rid of a Member of Parliament who was taking unpopular decisions. That is big money: it might not be big money paid to individuals, but it is big money influencing public opinion.

Graham Stuart: Ultimately, however, it would not be the press barons but our electorates who decided. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that our electorates are easily moulded by the tabloid press, I point out that the public would decide, not the press barons. That goes back to the earlier point that this is about trusting the public to exercise their judgment and come to the right conclusion.

Chris Bryant: Is not the truth that the people we are talking about—Leo Abse, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and, for that matter, people from previous generations, such as Plimsoll—all enhanced their reputation with the public even though they advanced unpopular causes? It would be exactly the same today.

Graham Stuart: I tend to agree. There is an idea that powerful outside forces will pick on a Member of Parliament, but as many Members have commented, whatever the public disgust with MPs in general—rightly or wrongly—people tend to have a much higher opinion of the MP in their own area. If such an MP was under threat for doing his or her job and for bravely standing up for what he or she thinks is right, I would trust local people to send out the strong message that they will have no truck with such efforts to destabilise and remove the MP. There would be risks, as there always are, but at least the decision would rest with the public in the constituency, who would ultimately decide the MP’s fate.
	We are where we are, and there is a crisis at least of public trust, although not of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a powerful speech on the importance of speaking up for Parliament and about the fact that Parliament works, whatever problems people may have with parties or individual MPs. None the less, I think that we need to
	trust the public to do the right thing. If we do that, they will feel that we have given them a say in judging whether or not we have done wrong.

Thomas Docherty: On behalf of the Opposition, I will respond to the debate and place on the record our position on recall.
	I am disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister has not joined us at any point in this debate. His name is on the Bill, but he has not chosen to come to the House today. We have, however, heard thoughtful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, and I shall touch briefly on four or five of them.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) asked whether the public and, indeed, Parliament had confidence in the Standards Committee. We share his concerns and believe that there is a compelling argument for reforming the composition of the Committee on a cross-party basis.
	The right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) spoke eloquently and at some length. He made the point, rightly, that vexatious recall petitions might be used to destabilise a Government. That is not something that we wish to see. He also said that MPs who voted for or against military action or going to war might face recall. If the lessons of the last century, and of 1914 in particular, teach us anything, it is that public opinion might be in one place at the start of a conflict, but in a different place by the end of it. The courageous MPs on both sides of the House who took a stance against the war in 1914 would undoubtedly have faced a recall petition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made the brief but important observation that we are representatives, not delegates. That is a position that the Opposition fully support.
	The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), apart from a three-week sabbatical in 2012, served for four years as Leader of the House and Chief Whip. He was perhaps, therefore, more than anybody else, the midwife of the Bill. He spoke eloquently about whether it is a cause or a conduct that we are trying to regulate. Like the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, he warned about the possibility of destabilising campaigns.
	The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire also spoke about the role of the Standards Committee. I asked a question of the House of Commons Library and, with its usual efficiency, it responded to me during the course of the debate. There have been 15 occasions when the Standards Committee has recommended suspension. On not one of those occasions has the House sought to overturn the recommendation of the Committee. That suggests that the House gets it right on suspensions.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) made a powerful and eloquent speech. I hope that we will see more of him in the Chamber during the Committee stage.
	The Opposition will support the Government in the Lobby this evening if there is a Division. As has been said several times, there was a commitment to introduce recall in the Labour party manifesto, as well as in the
	Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. In the coalition’s programme for government, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister stated jointly:
	“We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.”
	Given that this is the fifth year of a five-year Parliament, I wonder what happened to the “early legislation” part of that promise. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will have a good answer when he responds.
	We think that the Bill can be strengthened in a number of ways. We will set out our exact amendments in the next few days. However, I will talk briefly about two issues: the principle of recall and whether the provision should be extended to the holders of other public offices. There is cross-party support for the principle that where it can be shown that serious wrongdoing has occurred, the public should have the right to remove their representatives between elections. The public have a right to expect that those elected to represent constituents behave with probity. Where an elected representative has fallen well below the standard expected of the person holding office, it is unacceptable that they should be allowed to continue in office for up to five years without challenge.
	Equally, however, we do not support allowing vexatious or purely political attempts by well-funded vested interest groups to subvert the democratic will of the people, and we are concerned at the suggestion that recall could be triggered without genuine wrongdoing having occurred. It is not enough to dislike how a Member of Parliament has voted, and we will therefore consider carefully any amendments that widen the scope for recall. We are clear, however, that the trigger for recall should be a Member’s conduct, not the expression of an opinion with which some constituents disagree.
	There is a long and noble tradition of parliamentary pioneers, and the society we take for granted today was achieved only through a democratic struggle that stretched over 350 years. I am personally a great admirer of Charles James Fox, whose statue guards the public entrance to St Stephen’s Lobby. Fox was a thorn in the side of George III and many of his Prime Ministers. He was a campaigner against slavery and the slave trade. He fought for religious tolerance and personal freedom, and he opposed both the principle and conduct of the war with the colonies in North America. There is little doubt, however, that Charles James Fox would have faced a recall petition on more than one occasion if the proposals set out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) had been adopted at that time.
	There are equally great parliamentary reformers from the last 50 years. As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, Leo Abse was one such MP. Along with Lord Arran, he was a great champion of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. After Humphrey Berkeley lost his seat in 1966, Leo Abse took up the private Member’s Bill that ultimately led to the change in the law. What would have happened to Leo Abse—or indeed other parliamentary supporters—if recall had been available in 1967? I fear that some of those brave and forward-looking MPs would have been recalled.
	My constituency has suffered from the issue of probity, and I will explain why for those Members who may not be familiar with the situation. Shortly after being elected as the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the constituency of Dunfermline in 2011, Bill Walker was revealed to have repeatedly assaulted a number of women in his family over 30 years. In August 2013 he was convicted of 23 counts of domestic violence against three of his ex-wives, and one count of violence against his stepdaughter. In the case of his stepdaughter, such was the level of violence that he broke a frying pan over her head. However, my constituents were powerless to remove Bill Walker from his £60,000 a year job because the law as it currently stands requires a sentence of a year and a day in custody before disqualification. The maximum sentence that the Sheriff Court could hand out—and which indeed was given—was exactly one year. Only after a tenacious campaign by the Dunfermline Press newspaper did Mr Walker bow to public pressure and resign.
	I place on record my thanks to the Dunfermline Press for the public service it performed. That was an excellent example of a local newspaper providing leadership in its community, but it should not be the responsibility of a newspaper to take on that role. Parliament should be acting now to ensure that no constituency is in that ridiculous situation again, and that is why Labour supports the Bill. We believe that where there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing, the public have a right to remove and replace their MP.
	We agree with those who argue that the Bill does not go far enough. It would not have captured any MPs embroiled in the 1990s cash for questions scandal, it does not reform the standards procedure, and the scope is so narrowly drawn that provisions for recall cannot be extended to other elected representatives. For example, if a councillor is found to have committed a serious breach of the local authority code of conduct, why do the Government not propose that their constituents also have the right to recall them?
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why the Bill makes no provision for councillors, or indeed for police and crime commissioners, and will he update us on what progress—if any—has been made in talks with the Scottish Government on devolving this power to Holyrood? Why does the Bill not cover the three devolved Assemblies in Cardiff, Belfast and London?
	The Opposition support the Bill’s rather belated appearance. We look forward to working across the House to strengthen the Bill further, so that we can ensure that the final legislation is both robust and commands public confidence.

Tom Brake: We have had an impassioned debate and I am very grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. I will do my best in the time remaining to address as many of the points raised, but I think that will prove challenging.
	As we have seen, there are many different views on ways in which we ought to hold MPs to account. For some, this does not require a recall system at all. For others, a recall system should be available on any grounds and at any time. All three parties committed to a recall
	system in their manifestos and it was included in the coalition’s programme for government. MPs are elected to serve a term of five years and we believe they should continue to have the freedoms to carry out their job and make difficult decisions where necessary. However, the Government think it important to fill a gap in the current accountability of MPs by providing assurance that where an MP has been found guilty of serious wrongdoing—whether serving a prison sentence for committing a crime or a long period of suspension from the House for breaching the MPs code of conduct—the public will have a chance to have their say on whether the MP should continue to represent them.
	It would be a much better situation if there were no instances of wrongdoing that engage the triggers in the Bill, but where MPs commit serious wrongdoing, whether in the eyes of the law or the House of Commons, under the Government’s Bill they will be subject to a recall petition, We hope we have struck a middle ground by providing sensible and balanced proposals for a recall mechanism aimed at addressing wrongdoing. Our proposals aim to provide a robust, fair and open process that is suitable for our system of parliamentary democracy.
	In the time that remains, I will try to address some of the comments, concerns and criticisms that were raised. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), in the Opposition’s opening and summing-up speeches, referred to cash for questions. I think the suggestion was that cash for questions would not be covered under the Government’s proposals. That is not correct. Cash for questions would clearly constitute a breach of the code of conduct. It would therefore be perfectly in order for the Standards Committee to consider the matter and recommend a duration of suspension that could lead to a recall.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a number of points. He suggested that the Bill sets back democracy because its scope is too narrow. That is not the Government’s view. The concerns we have about his proposals—this point was not picked up by him, or by any of the supporters of his proposals—relate to the 5% petitions: the initial stage where, as far as I understand it, people or campaigns could spend as much as they wanted on drumming up support that could then be transferred or translated into the starting point of the petition process. That issue needs to be addressed and he did not respond to it. As I understand it, when he and colleagues had an initial discussion on this, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised the need to address it because he had identified that it was a problem in the Californian system. As I understand it, this is not a matter that has been addressed in the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
	The hon. Gentleman referred repeatedly to the threshold of 14,000 or 15,000 people to achieve the 20%. That is true, but I think that in most constituencies the process of initiating the 5% petition—the indication of the need for a petition—will be used again and again, rather than people necessarily raising the 20% required for a referendum.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we are all susceptible to the pressures of newspapers. That is exactly the point about how the process of starting the initial petition, the indication of the 5%, will be used. He referred to the fact that in America recall has apparently been used
	only 40 times in the past 100 years. However, the figures I have are that in 2014 alone, and in California alone, there have been 30 recall petitions initiated at different levels of government. It is not a process that happens only once in a while; it happens regularly. He also challenged the Government’s estimate that a constituency referendum would cost about £90,000. If he has a different figure, I would like to see it, but I stand by ours.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised an interesting point about whether courts would give an MP a lesser sanction than others found guilty of a similar offence. On the contrary, I wonder whether they might not impose a higher sanction.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a balanced and sensible contribution. He thinks that perhaps MPs have lost respect because we have given too many powers away, but often one of people’s greatest concerns about Westminster is that we are holding on to far too many powers, as opposed to giving too many away—or at least that we are not giving powers away in the right places by pushing down the decision-making process.
	The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) referred rather disparagingly to Westminster grandees and the lay people on the Standards Committee. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I know one of the lay people, Sharon Darcy, who is also a leading light in my local citizens advice bureau, and in no way is she a Westminster grandee, and nor would she have her views pressurised by anyone in this place, be they Whips or anyone else. He also drew some parallels between trusting a jury and trusting the electorate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), who is no longer in his place, intervened to point out that there must be something to answer for before reaching the jury stage, which is not the case in relation to the proposals from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

Stewart Jackson: Last weekend, in response to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), the Prime Minister agreed that the Government would look at the amendments, yet the Deputy Leader of the House seems to be setting his face against them. Do the Government intend to table amendments accepting the central premise of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)?

Tom Brake: Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have indicated that the Bill could be improved and that we are willing to listen to proposals, but that does not necessarily mean adopting the proposals from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said we were better off trusting our own constituents. Like all Members, of course I trust mine, but it is not the constituents who are the issue; it is the campaign groups and vexatious individuals who might decide to launch repeated recall petitions with no basis, as opposed to challenging MPs because they have committed serious wrongdoing.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)was worried that people who had been detained in a police station might be caught by the Bill. Clearly, that would not be the case in any circumstances.
	The word “detention” is designed to capture circumstances where an MP, having been convicted and sentenced, is ordered to serve their sentence somewhere other than in a prison—for example, a young offenders institution or a hospital.
	I welcome the very rational comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on the EU and immigration—I am just sorry they will not do him any good. I wonder, however, whether in three years he might not feel that it is his party that has deserted him and that instead of him leaving his party, he should stay put and other people should move to another party.

Mark Field: I can confirm that I will not be joining the Liberal Democrats.

Tom Brake: I was not suggesting that was what the hon. Gentleman had in mind; I was thinking he might set up a party called the “One Nation Conservative party”.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: I need to make some progress.
	The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) gave a very blunt critique of the Bill, which as a Member who is leaving the House he is perhaps in a better place to do than others.
	The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) asked how we restore faith in this place and was of the view that recall will not help. My view is that it will and, in fact, when the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee considered the issue and commissioned a poll, it found that the public do not understand why MPs can continue to sit if they have committed a serious crime and it also found that a massive nine out of 10 people thought that MPs who committed a serious crime should face a recall.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Tom Brake: I am sorry, but I am not going to give way. I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made by Members who were present during the debate.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the point that hon. Members should be protected in doing their duties in this House. I am not sure that the amendments he is supporting will enable that to happen. I was pleased that we had two contributions from expert former Leaders of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) put his finger on it immediately when he said that the issue is with Members being subject to a notice of intent to recall and the damage that is associated with that. He also asked a specific question about the Standards Committee. I certainly agree with him that the disciplinary procedures of the House must be robust and I welcome the review that a sub-committee of the Standards Committee is undertaking to consider its disciplinary procedures. These matters are for the House as a whole, but the Government would certainly support any amendments to the procedure that Members felt improved
	it. That might well include introducing measures that increase the role of the lay members and ensure that their views are properly represented.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh pointed out, quite rightly, that in some states in the US, after a recall petition, rather than a member of another party being elected someone from the same party is appointed to replace them. To draw too many parallels with the US is not very helpful.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: I will not give way, as I still want to respond to a couple of speeches.
	I understand why the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is proposing her amendment, but, in an intervention, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is not his place, pointed out that simply having the name of the sponsor is not a solution as any vexatious individual or campaign can replace it with another when they need to. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke about the need to balance the rights of individuals with the risk of vexatious campaigns.
	We were very fortunate to have a contribution from another past Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who pointed out succinctly that much of the debate is about cause and conduct. He comes down, as I do, on the side of this being about conduct, or misconduct, not cause. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made the same point about cause or conduct.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said, to summarise his speech, that it was time for us to grasp the controls in the cockpit of democracy. I would fully support that.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) said that the public feel cheated about the extra hurdles that he suggested we are putting in people’s way. However, I would say that the issue is more with the proposals made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. They contain more hurdles, and the time it would take to complete them is longer than that proposed by the Government.
	I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for the Bill on Second Reading and we make no apologies for the time it has taken to introduce the Bill. I would prefer that we had decent, well-researched legislation than rushed legislation. He referred to police and crime commissioners and councillors. Clearly, the Government will want to consider them in the future, but they do not fall within the scope of the Bill. He also referred to the situation in Scotland, but this is clearly a matter on which the Scottish parties need to get agreement.
	To sum up, I reiterate that the Bill is about providing public accountability when there have been proven cases of wrongdoing. I have tried to address the points that have been raised. The Bill proposes a recall system that is open and fair and that fits with our unique constitutional system and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I come to the programme motion and ask a Minister or Whip to move it, I should tell the House that there is an error on the Order Paper in that the words “remaining new clauses” should have appeared after the words “Clauses 21 to 25” under the business for the third day.

Recall of MPs Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Recall of MPs Bill:
	
		
			 Committal  (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. 
			 Proceedings in Committee  (2) Proceeding in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in three days.  (3) the proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.  (4) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table. 
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day  
			 Clauses 1 to 5, new clauses and new Schedules relating to how an MP becomes subject to a recall The moment of interruption on the first day 
			 Second day  
			 Clause 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 13, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the recall petition process (except any relating to the determination of the success of a recall petition, the effect of a successful recall petition, or financial controls) The moment of interruption on the second day 
			 Third day  
			 Clauses 14 and 15, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the determination of the success of a recall petition or the effect of a successful recall petition, Clause 16, Schedules 3 to 5, Clause 17, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to financial controls, Clauses 18 to 20, Schedule 6, clauses 21 to 25, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill The moment of interruption on the third day 
			 Consideration and Third Reading  
			 (5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.  (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day. 
		
	
	
		
			 Programming committee  
			 (7) Standing Order No.83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading 
			 Other proceedings  
			 (8) Any other proceedings on the Bill 9including any procee3dings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.

Recall of MPs Bill: Money

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.52(1)(a),
	That, for the purposes of an Act resulting from the Recall of MPs Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making payments to petition officers relating to their functions under or by virtue of the Act; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Sittings of the house

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
	That this House at its rising on Thursday 12 February 2015, do adjourn until Monday 23 February 2015.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Independent parliamentary standards authority

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from the end of his current term until 1 June 2016.—(Mel Stride.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as the to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division is deferred until tomorrow. (Standing Order No. 41A).

European Union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU General Budget 2015: Draft Budget

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10340/14, a draft Amending Budget No. 3/2014 to the General Budget 2014, No. 10341/14, a draft Decision on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2014, No. SEC (2014) 357, Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2015: Preparation of the 2015 Draft Budget, Documents I-IV, No. 10946/14, a draft
	Decision on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, and No. 10947/14, a draft Decision on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, it is essential that the European Union budget reflects the consolidation efforts of Member States to bring the levels of deficits and debt onto a more sustainable path; notes that the Council position on the 2015 Draft Budget respects the seven year Multi-Annual Financial Framework agreement for 2014-20, secured by the Prime Minister in 2013, which delivers an unprecedented real-terms reduction compared with the 2007-13 period in addition to protecting the UK rebate; calls on the Government to continue its efforts to limit the size of the EU budget by pressing for necessary restraint and discipline in the budget negotiations in autumn 2014 and beyond, in order to get the best deal for UK taxpayers; and agrees that further reform of the budget is necessary over the longer term
	.—(Mel Stride
	.
	)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Traffic Calming Measures on Glentworth Road East in Westgate

David Morris: I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of almost all the residents who live on Glentworth Road East in Westgate in my constituency. This campaign has been spearheaded by Mr Kevin Hyde, whom I met to discuss the issues. I then joined him in taking his petition to all his neighbours. What astounded me was the support I received from every household I visited for more traffic-calming measures on this residential road. Glentworth Road East is directly opposite an industrial area called Whiteland and workers often use the residential road for parking. This narrows the road considerably while also narrowing the pavements. There have been lots of near misses on this stretch and sometimes even mothers with babies in prams are unable to use the pavement. The residents want a residents-only parking scheme. The road has also become a short-cut for speeding cars that are trying to avoid the speed camera on the main road. That, coupled with the narrowing of the road, is extremely dangerous, so the residents want a one-way system, too. I urge the House to support my call on Lancashire county council to act and introduce some traffic-calming measures in that area.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of members of the community in Morecambe,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that there should be traffic calming measures introduced on Glentworth Road East and also parking restrictions imposed.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Lancashire County Council to take steps to support the residents in Morecambe and to ensure that measures are introduced to stop speeding and dangerous parking in Westgate.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001390]

HIGH SPEED 2 (COMPENSATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of compensation for those adversely affected by High Speed 2. I thank colleagues for being here alongside me, as well as those who were unable to attend but have contacted my office. Since its announcement, and in common with others such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), I have received numerous representations from people affected by HS2. The theme, I am afraid, is a common one: despair at the current compensation arrangements and a feeling of powerlessness from people who think they cannot influence the process.
	Since HS2’s announcement, I have consistently pushed for a fair and generous compensation package. Sadly, despite six public consultations and four years of anxiety for my constituents in Chesham and Amersham and for other colleagues’ constituents, the current proposals for compensation remain as inadequate as ever. However, before the Government’s announcement of their response to the latest consultation, I wanted to give the Minister one more chance finally to listen to people and to put things right.
	There have been promises from Ministers. The overriding principle of this project ought to be that no one should have to suffer a financial penalty or be trapped in their home because of HS2. That view is shared by many of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is currently on paternity leave but who would otherwise have been present. Unfortunately, the reality shows that that is not the case. Some properties have been on the market for years, and people are trapped and unable to move on with their lives.
	Notwithstanding those ministerial promises, the compensation schemes to date have been woefully derisory, and people are facing substantial financial loss. The Transport Secretary promised that compensation would be “full and fair” for “those most directly affected”, and the Prime Minister told me personally that compensation schemes would be “generous and fair”. Given that other major infrastructure projects are in the pipeline, it is time for a rethink on compensation. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, with the aim of introducing fairer arrangements.

Jim Cunningham: I appreciated the fact that when members of the HS2 Committee visited Coventry and Kenilworth, they allowed me to accompany them and explain the situation to some of my constituents. As for the question of negative equity—I know that the right hon. Lady will agree with me about this—some people in the Coventry area who have invested their life savings will not qualify for any form of compensation.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has made a very valid point, and I shall say more about it shortly.
	There are problems with the current compensation proposals. They will compensate only about 2% of those who live within 1 km of HS2, or within 250 metres
	from a tunnel. As the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, despite widespread evidence of blight, the vast majority of people affected by HS2 will not be compensated fairly, because the Government have consistently linked the scheme to distance from the line and have ignored the wider effects. HS2 Action Alliance has calculated that only about 172,000 people will receive any kind of compensation, although more than a million live within 1 km of HS2 and many are being adversely affected.

Frank Dobson: In my area, around Euston, people will be living next to the biggest construction site in Europe for 10 or 15 years. They will be living within a yard of the works. However, they will be entitled to no compensation at all. As the right hon. Lady will know, uncertainty is a major source of blight. The revised proposals for Euston were supposed to be presented next month, but that has now been postponed until after the general election.

Cheryl Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman and I have stood shoulder to shoulder across the House on this issue. There is no party divide on it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) is similarly concerned, as are many other colleagues. The point is well made.
	According to estimates in data commissioned by the Government from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the average loss to a homeowner is 20% up to 500 metres from the line, 30% up to 300 metres away, and 40% up to 120 metres away. Moreover, that blight is not temporary. PwC says that it will be at its worst until at least 2023. The Government have failed to recognise that, or the fact that the scale of suffering extends well beyond the line itself.
	As things stand, there is not even sufficient compensation for those living above tunnels. HS2 Ltd believes that home owners are not unduly affected by tunnels, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), for example, informs me that the property market in his constituency tells a very different story. There is no compensation for those affected by construction, although it will inevitably be very extensive in impact and duration. Constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) in Wendover and Stoke Mandeville live very close to the safeguarded area and the proposed construction sites, but they do not qualify for compensation under the boundary rules. It is grossly unfair that they should be expected to endure the disturbance of construction and operation as well as putting up with a loss of value to their properties unless they can prove an exceptional need to sell. Some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents say that estate agents simply refuse to place their properties on the market and that potential purchasers have been refused any mortgage on properties because of HS2. This is emblematic of the broad injustice of the current compensation measures.
	The compensation schemes announced and operating to date are also problematic. The exceptional hardship scheme and the need to sell schemes have been arduous and complicated for many of our constituents, and in my view they are often wholly unjust. The lack of consistency in the decision-making process has been incredibly frustrating for those involved, and the accuracy of valuations has been the subject of contention in
	many areas. There has been little transparency in this process. The latest proposals—the alternative cash offer and the home owner payment—offer poor value to the taxpayer and involve arbitrary sums that bear little relation to the actual loss suffered by the individual.

Nigel Adams: I support the principle of the alternative cash offer for those living within 120 metres, but the scheme simply does not work for those living beyond that line. Does my right hon. Friend understand the concerns of my constituent, Mr Watson from Church Fenton, who e-mailed me earlier today to say that he was not at all happy to lose £95,000 from the value of his property? He described it as writing a cheque to the Government for £95,000 only to receive a Government refund of £7,500. That is neither full nor fair.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Phase 2 will affect his constituency, and the problems that we are having with phase 1 will come back to haunt us all on phase 2, so it is good that he is raising these matters early on behalf of his constituents. He is absolutely right to suggest that the alternative cash offer applies only to a limited number of home owners. As the payment is based on a 10% loss and is capped at a maximum of £100,000, it is completely unreflective of the true loss in property value. It is not a strong enough incentive for people to stay in their homes.

Jeremy Lefroy: May I return for a moment to the exceptional hardship scheme? A constituent of mine, having arrived at a value that was supposed to be fair, was then asked by HS2 to reduce the figure by £20,000 so that it could get the property into a rentable state. That is neither fair nor reasonable.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend’s example speaks for itself.

Dominic Grieve: I wholly endorse what my right hon. Friend is saying. The fact is that many people in my constituency have homes of very high value, but the compensation bears absolutely no relationship to the investment that they have made in purchasing the home, or to the fact that in many cases the properties are heavily mortgaged and that their losses will be colossal—running into millions of pounds in many cases.

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Those people have worked hard, saved and invested in those properties.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Those of us who are between Birmingham and Manchester are extremely glad that we are going to have the opportunity to petition and to have our case heard by the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee, and we are grateful to her for everything she has done.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend. I glad to see that the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), is in his place. I note that there are many hon. Members here tonight, and
	I welcome those who have just come into the Chamber. It is important to put these points to the Minister in as forceful a way as possible.
	The home owner payment scheme proposes to give home owner payments to those living between 120 metres and 300 metres from the line. This once again limits compensation by distance from the line. It also does little to assist the functionality of the property market in affected areas. The payments on offer are too low and, as the effect of inflation is not considered, they might be inaccurate as well.
	Like other colleagues, I have many farmers and landowners in my constituency, and none of the schemes properly addresses the impact of HS2 on them. I deal with a number of organisations, including the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union, that are campaigning hard to ensure that affected landowners receive fair and timely compensation, and I hope the Minister understands the special problems facing farmers and growers. He is a farmer himself, so I am hoping for that special understanding.

Caroline Spelman: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that for many farmers the difficulty is that they are compensated at agricultural prices, but where land is taken beyond the actual requirements for the track, there is of course speculative value in that land, and does she agree that it is important that land-take is kept to a minimum?

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point and I entirely agree.
	Concern has also been expressed to me by colleagues, and, indeed, Mr Speaker, about the fact that compensation has only currently been offered to owner-occupiers. Owners of second homes or those living in social housing receive no recompense, in spite of having to endure years of disruption and intrusion in an identical fashion to homeowners. If HS2 goes ahead, I would like to see four main changes on compensation and a greater safeguard for those affected.
	First, I and many others have always supported the introduction of a property bond scheme, as proposed by HS2 Action Alliance, where the Government act as a purchaser of last resort, and whereby buyers have the confidence to buy properties on the open market at unblighted prices. I believe this scheme would provide greater functionality of blighted property markets, and a better deal for all constituents.
	PricewaterhouseCoopers’ March 2014 report on a potential property bond scheme concluded that it was a fair option, assuming it has a generous boundary. Regrettably, there has been a continual reluctance to adopt this option by Ministers, in spite of widespread backing. The Department for Transport has rejected this scheme in the past because of “money risks”. However, figures from PwC demonstrate that the figures are not prohibitive, and given the clear benefits of this scheme in terms of supporting normal market activity, I would ask the Minister to reconsider this scheme carefully once again and recognise its obvious advantages for both the market and those affected.
	Secondly, the “need to sell” scheme needs revising to remove the financial hardship criteria to allow those who are unable to sell their properties because of HS2 to be free to move. Thirdly, the boundaries of the voluntary purchase scheme should be widened to a distance greater than the 120 metres, reflecting the true levels of blight and to match the payments actually made under HS1.
	Fourthly, the whole compensation package should take into proper account blight in urban areas, over tunnels, and those who will suffer extensive construction disruption. In particular, the Treasury should reconsider once again the possibility of introducing stamp duty exemptions for affected properties to re-stimulate the property market.
	Finally, if this project ever reaches its construction phase it will cause blight and disruption still to be identified. I believe that to protect my constituents, and all our constituents who are affected by HS2, we need an additional safeguard. I propose that the construction code should be added to the Bill in order to implement a binding and comprehensive duty of care that sets standards and time scales for the conduct of HS2, its contractors and sub-contractors during construction. An independent ombudsman should be appointed to adjudicate swiftly on abuses and with powers to compensate those adversely affected.
	The current £50 billion budget for HS2 is currently being paid by the taxpayer, but it is also being paid at the expense of those who will suffer as a result of this project. Government have a duty of care to ensure that those blighted by this highly disruptive infrastructure project are fully and appropriately compensated. A failure to do so is not only insulting, but also sets a worrying precedent for inadequate mitigation for future schemes.
	The Minister will have noticed tonight that I speak not just for my own constituency, but for many others, and I urge him to listen to our electors and do the decent thing by people whose lives have been turned upside down by this risky, poorly managed and ill-conceived project.
	To borrow, and slightly change, the words from “Macbeth”, “If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done properly.”

Robert Goodwill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate on the compensation package for phase 1 of HS2. She has been a tireless campaigner on the impact of HS2, and I recognise her continuing determination to ensure that the Government do not lose sight of those concerns. Indeed, the presence of so many right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber underlines that point. I am aware that because of ministerial responsibilities, some colleagues are not able to speak on this, but I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) never let me forget about the concerns of their constituents too.
	I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has recently asked a number of parliamentary questions in relation to HS2 and has
	been in regular correspondence with my Department. I must also explain why she has not had a response to her recent letter on behalf of the HS2 Action Alliance. The issue at the heart of this correspondence is the way in which we have estimated the number of properties within particular distances of HS2, including the data used in replying to a parliamentary question in November 2013. Estimating property counts in a given area is an extremely complex and technical matter, and the Department for Transport is currently preparing a detailed response.
	I am pleased to be responding to this debate on a subject that is of such great importance to my right hon. Friend and her constituents. Before I respond to the points she has raised, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity to set out the current position on the compensation package for HS2. Measures to assist property owners and occupiers affected by new infrastructure have developed over the years through a mixture of statute, case law and established practice and are referred to as the compensation code. Although the Government remain confident that reliance on the existing compensation code is appropriate for the majority of infrastructure schemes, we believe that the exceptional nature of the HS2 project justifies a different approach and the Government have long been committed to introducing measures for those directly affected by HS2 that go beyond what is required by law.
	At present, we have the exceptional hardship scheme in place for phase 1 of HS2. That has always been intended as an interim measure to assist those property owners who have an urgent need to sell their home but have not been able to do so, except at a substantially reduced price, as a direct result of the announcement of the route for the railway. We have also introduced express purchase for owner-occupied properties within the safeguarded area. There are detailed maps available on the HS2 website to allow people to determine where their properties are in relation to the safeguarded area. Express purchase was introduced from 9 April 2014.
	I am pleased to be able to update Members on the properties that we have purchased under the schemes that are currently open. To the end of September 2014, we have spent £110.3 million purchasing 162 properties affected by phase 1.

Alec Shelbrooke: The problem in my constituency is that, under this scheme, HS2 has not given the market value for these properties, and it is driving down the price of those properties. That matter was raised with HS2 back in August, and I still have not received a response.

Robert Goodwill: The instruction to our valuers was that they should value properties at the previous unblighted price.
	The properties have been purchased under the exceptional hardship scheme, the statutory blight arrangements, and through express purchase. Compensation for disturbance costs and reasonable moving costs are not included in the expenditure figures.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that my constituency is affected not only by phase 1, but by phase 2. Does he agree that, as a matter of principle, whatever compensation schemes are put in
	place for phase 1, and hopefully, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has said, they will be generous ones, they should apply equally to those in phase 2?

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If we can reach a fair compensation package for phase 1, we will certainly need to bear that in mind as we look at phase 2. I suspect that those affected by phase 2 would expect no less.

Jim Cunningham: There are people in Coventry who are not covered by any compensation scheme, and yet they have invested their life savings in their properties. They cannot sell their properties now. What will the Government do about that?

Robert Goodwill: That is precisely why we are putting these compensation schemes in place. We also have an exceptional hardship scheme in place for phase 2. To the end of September 2014, we have purchased 32 properties at a cost of £15.1 million.
	Following the property compensation consultation in 2013 for the London to west midlands HS2 route, the Government decided to use five criteria to select the most appropriate long-term discretionary property compensation packages for phase 1 of HS2. Those criteria are: fairness; value for money; community cohesion; feasibility, efficiency and comprehensibility; and the functioning of the housing market. Accordingly, the Government announced on 9 April the long-term compensation schemes that would be introduced for phase 1. They included express purchase, which I have already mentioned.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but did I hear him cite the word “fairness”?

Robert Goodwill: Precisely. Fairness is at the heart of our approach—fairness to those who have to move because their properties are being demolished or are so close to the line; and fairness to those who want to stay in their communities and maintain community cohesion.
	We announced a voluntary purchase offer that would be available to people up to 120 metres from the railway in rural areas. Eligible owner-occupiers between the safeguarded area and 120 metres will be able to ask the Government to buy their homes at the unblighted market value. The scheme will be opened to applicants by the end of 2014 following further consultation on supplementary cash payment schemes.

Jim Cunningham: As I said, we have people in Coventry outside the 120-metre area who have invested their life savings in a property, but cannot sell it. How will they be compensated?

Robert Goodwill: I will move on to the measures for those further away, but we understand that many people’s biggest asset is their home. In fact, many people see their home as part of their retirement package.
	We announced a “need to sell” scheme to help property owners who have a compelling need to sell their home, but are unable to do so because of our plans to build HS2. There will be no outer boundary to that scheme, which will also be opened to applicants by the end
	of 2014. It will succeed the current exceptional hardship scheme for phase 1, which will then be closed. When we implement the voluntary purchase and “need to sell” schemes later this year, we will publish detailed guidance about how they will work.
	We have also announced rent back, a rule that means that if a property that the Government have purchased under any of our schemes is suitable for letting, the previous owner may, if they wish, be considered for a Crown tenancy. That scheme was introduced on 9 April.
	We have consulted separately over the summer on two supplementary cash payment schemes. The first would provide that, for owner-occupiers in the voluntary purchase area, an alternative cash offer of 10% of the unblighted market value of their property, with a cap of £100,000 and a minimum payment of £30,000, would apply.

William Cash: Does the Minister accept that this is a wholly inadequate package? We sincerely trust that the Committee considering the Bill will listen carefully to the analysis that we will put forward in our petitions, because it is petitions to this House that ought to make the difference.

Robert Goodwill: I pay tribute to the petitions Committee, which has set about carrying out its role in a workmanlike way. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the Chair of that Committee, is in the Chamber to hear this debate.
	That cash payment scheme might help some people to decide that they do not need to move to protect the value of their investment in their home. We have also consulted on a home owner payment scheme to provide cash payments to eligible owner-occupiers between 120 metres and 300 metres from the centre line, following Royal Assent of the phase 1 hybrid Bill, to enable affected residents to share early in the future economic benefits of the railway. We have sought views on consequential changes to the voluntary purchase offer and the “need to sell” scheme.

Dominic Grieve: What about stamp duty? It is now a very substantial tax, and anyone who sells their house, even under the voluntary purchase scheme, will have to pay stamp duty on a fresh purchase. Those people moving to a property of substantial value, which is the sort that they are likely to move into, will face a serious penalty, and one that they would not have wished on themselves, because they had no intention of moving.

Robert Goodwill: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s point. Stamp duty and moving costs will be payable for those in the closest band to the railway. We will announce the outcome of the consultation to which I referred later this year.
	On the long-standing campaign of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for a longer tunnel through the Chilterns, we have considered a range of options for tunnels.

Frank Dobson: I do not wish to delay the Minister in turning his attention to the tunnel, but can he explain why the terms for urban areas are different from those for rural areas?

Robert Goodwill: We take the view that the level of disruption in rural areas, particularly the effect on property prices, is absolutely different from that in urban areas, where properties can be close to the railway but there might be many houses in between, and in many cases there is already a railway established, for example near Euston station, which no doubt people were aware of when they moved there.

Frank Dobson: My constituents might not fancy the idea of a new station, but what they really do not want is having to live next to a construction site for a decade or more. That is what they are bothered about.

Robert Goodwill: Yes, and I spent time with the right hon. Gentleman in his constituency, along with the leader of his council, looking at some of the mitigation that can be put in place.
	I will talk a little about the property bond. My right hon. Friend referred to the Government’s decision against a property bond as a means of providing compensation for generalised blight caused by HS2. The main aim of the property bond concept is to ensure that eligible property owners do not suffer unreasonable losses because of any reduction in the market value of their properties caused by a proposed development. The defining feature of a property bond is the idea that eligible property owners, at an early stage in a project’s development, would be given a specific and binding promise of a well-defined, individual settlement, which the property owner would be entitled to redeem in specific circumstances. Should the property transfer ownership, so too would the bond. The outcome of a property bond scheme would reflect the way the scheme influenced property buyers, vendors and professionals throughout the lifetime of the relevant infrastructure project. Without evidence of those behaviours and decisions from actual schemes, it is very hard to assess the performance of a property bond for HS2.
	The Government continue to believe that the property bond concept has merit, and that it was right to put it forward as an option in the property compensation consultation in 2013. However, taking all consultation responses and further practical and analytical findings into account, we continue to be concerned that the effects of a property bond on the behaviour and decisions of property owners, professionals and especially property buyers remain unknown and hard to assess.
	In conclusion—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robert Goodwill: I have only 50 seconds remaining, so I will not give way.
	In conclusion, I again congratulate my right hon. Friend on her unflagging energy in seeking the best outcome for those affected by HS2, and I very much recognise the importance of the compensation package to her and her constituents. I note the concerns she has raised and hope that I have shown hon. Members that we have a package in place that meets the Government’s policy objectives for compensation: fairness, value for money, community cohesion, feasibility, efficiency, comprehensibility, and the functioning of the housing market. I am confident that the compensation package,
	once fully in place alongside the protections already available through the compensation code, will perform well against those criteria.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.